Related Local Links:
Build Quality Surprises
Check RF body/lens registration
Leica Finder Flare
Leica M7
Leica's Retrofocus Wide Angle Lenses
Lens Registration - Leica Vs. Konica [10/2002]
List of Leica Mount Lens Makers
Minolta vs Leica Tests
Only 1.2 Lenses Sold Per M Body?
Rangefinder Best Buys
Rangefinder FAQ
Russian Lens Resolutions
Table of RF Focusing base length

Collected Postings Courtesy of Doug Richardson
Collected Posting on Jupiter 85mm lens " "
Collected Posting on Russian 20mm lens " "

Related Links:
Bessa Rangefinder Prototype Review
Bessa T by Steve Gandy (1/4 cost of M6TTL, uses M lenses..)
Canon P RF (Dante Stella)
Canon 7 & VI-L RF (Dante Stella) [4/2002]
Canon Lenses for Leica (Dante Stella)
Charles Nguyen Leica Pages
Compatibility of Leica M lenses with Minolta CLE/CL [7/2001]
Cosina Bessa Rangefinder
Erwin Puts Leica CDROM
Fed 5C Review
Guide to Buying a Used R3 system
Jem Kime's Guide To Leica Cam Lenses
Jim Brick's Guide to Leica R Cam Lenses 101 [3/2001]
Kiev Rangefinders (by Peter Henning, Cameraquest) [11/2002]
Leica "Freedom Train" (WWII) [10/2002]
Leica Lenses Manual (pdf)[9/2002]
Leica M Lens Test Results [4/2002]
Leica M series Lens Reviewed (Paul Butzi)
Leica M3 Review (Erwin Puts)
Leica M6 Review (Paul Butzi)
Leicas for Leftys [1/2001]
LTM Lenses (cameraquest) [11/2002]
Nikon Lenses for Leica (Dante Stella)
Rangefinder Focusing Tips (Kevin Kalsbeek)
Rangefinder Renaissance 35mm.. (Bob Shell, Beststuff.com) [8/2002]
Review of Leica M mount lenses
Review of Leica M6 by Kirk Tuck [6/2001]
Russian Camera Collector Site (info + links) [12/2000]
Russian Leica Copies
Russian Rangefinder Pages (Manuals and articles)
Voigtlander Leica Mount Lens Reviews (Cosina..)
Yasuhara Corp (Japan Leica-L rangefinder clone maker)

Leica Gallery
Lee Freidlander
Mary Ellen Mark
Salgado
Ted Grant
Tina Manley

Chinese Leica clones (p.31-2 above) include Shanghai 58-II (and rarer 58-I) and Red Flag (M4 clone). Nikka and Leotax Leica clones from Japan. British Reid I - III - all at auction...

When is a Clone not a Clone?

Most repair techs can check this problem for you, using an optical bench or other test gear. Usually, non-matching lenses or bodies can be made to work together. Now you know another thing to check if you get some badly focused results, especially when used wide open, and after careful rangefinder alignments.

The above article concludes with "Warning: When cross-dressing Leica M and Voigtlander M lenses and cameras, be careful. Some lenses may fit the mount but not slide properly into the interior of the camera."

Dante Stella's excellent lens registration article examines this issue for Konica Hexar RF and Leica M series bodies. I believe his explanation for the above table resolution discrepancies in poor focusing effects is reasonable. The Leica lens registration distance in practice is essentially identical to that of the Konica Hexar RF, with a small allowance (.05mm) for film buckling. This observation makes much more sense than the claims that Konica cloned the M-bayonet mount, but got the lens registration wrong. [Update 10/2002]

The very important point here is that clone lenses, whether Russian, Ukrainian, Konica RF, or Voigtlander M variants have to be checked and adjusted to match your camera's lens registration distance to produce sharp results (especially wide open). The depth of focus will cover some problems when stopped down, but best results require a lens matched to the body being used.

Now you know why some folks love their Russian clone lenses, and others cast aspersions on the same optics. As Bob Shell notes in postings below, your camera and lens will work fine if their lens registrations match. But if you use a lens whose lens registration distance is a mere 0.2mm off that of the body, you will get poorer resolution, especially with fast lenses used wide open.

Again, older screw mount lenses should be checked to ensure their lens registrations are appropriate. I would say this is especially critical with older Russian or Ukrainian RF lenses, which are known to vary from the expected ideals in many lens samples which have been tested.

If you aren't sure whether to have this adjustment done, simply test your lenses wide open with fine grain film and compare the resolution with other lenses which are known good. Any problems should be more evident. If you don't see any problems with close focusing distances and your lens when used wide open, you don't probably don't have anything to worry about. If you are one of those who can't help but worry, then get your lenses and camera checked out. Some adjustments or shims will put your lens right into the proper alignment distance at modest costs, if your lens alignment is off.

It may be worthwhile to also check your camera body alignment (and RF focusing alignment) at the same time, in case the camera body is at fault. If you are still getting out of focus results, it may be time to check your vision and eyes to see if that's where the problem lies!

The improvement in maximum lens resolution performance might astonish you. On our critical focusing pages, we have charts which show small errors in focusing of 0.2mm or less can cut maximum resolution in half!

So when you see people trashing some of the clone lenses online, you will have to wonder if they simply failed to match the lens to the camera lens registration distance or really had a bad lens sample. Probably many of the poor ratings for Russian and Ukrainian lenses are from similar mis-match problems, rather than anything flawed with the lens design or construction. On the other hand, you may now be able to buy some great bargains in clone lenses, get them tuned up to the right lens registration distance, and greatly improve their performance. Enjoy!

Related Postings:

Well, let's see. The Bessa-L is selling for about $ 250 out of NYC, body only. I know what the dealer price on both cameras is, so my guess would be that the Bessa-R will sell for somewhere in the neighborhood of $ 569.95, give or take a nickel!

I already put my order in for one, in black.

Bob

......

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 1998
From: Andre [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT before you buy a Bessa L

Before you all jump and shell out the cash, wait. I have a friend in Japan and asked him to buy one for me as soon as it shows up at Yodobashi or any other photo store. The retail price is 68,000 Yen (about 600 bucks). Rangefinder duties and shipping will add less than 100 bucks to the total price.

Also, if you want a user report, I suggest you go to http://www.rapidwinder.com and email the owner Tom Abrahamson. He has a pre-production model he has been kicking around for a few weeks. The short and sweet of his review is "Great Body at a Great Price."

Andre

[Ed.note: spherical and other aberrations for a unique oldie lens look..]
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000
From: "John Stafford" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.technique.nature
Subject: Re: This 35mm vs 4x5 myth

> [...] I beleive I saw something about
> multiple exposures.  Is this a method of soft
> focus?  Is soft focus a way to get this luminuous
> look?

Multiple Exposure? Perhaps something like that!

I'd have to see the picture, but take a look at Avedon's famous print of Brigitte Bardot (1959 hair ad). It has a subtle "multiple exposure" effect in the subject's hair - making it look almost electric, and the effect was done in the darkroom by Avedon's assistant (for the shoot), Andre Gremela. Avedon couldn't repeat the effect. I believe all prints are copies of that Gremela print. (Gremela learned the technique from someone else, but I can't remember who.)

Another luminous effect you don't see much today is caused by "inferior compared to today's" fast lenses shot wide open. There is a peculiar edge effect. I miss my old (and Leica's first) 35mm F1.4 for that.

Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000
From: "Mark Kronquist" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.marketplace
Subject: FS Custom Made Fed 5c Leica Copy NEW Boxed

We had the Fed Factory make up 100 each new Fed 5c Cameras (with case lens manual and box) with a red leather, a pressed green leather and a brown leather body covering. Almost all of these wnt to collectors in Japan

I have ONE Red Leather and ONE Green leather camera left. These are factory new with factory coverings and from my last message the factory WILL NOT DO ANY MORE.

$199 each shipped US

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 28 Feb 2000
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Subject: Re: US Leica Pricing

>You are right about Leica being able to name the price. But on the other
>hand, I knew a Leica dealer in Columbia, MO., who used to make about $100 on
>each lens or body he sold.

I have it on good authority that the dealer markup on Leica equipment runs about 8% before discounts and rebates. So that M6TTL .85x you just bought for $2095 netted the dealer about $170 or so. That's not a lot.

Godfrey

[Ed. note: I have posted this edited note to point out this view, that you will usually get your money back, maybe more, with an investment in the rationally priced used Leica items...]

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2000
From: Mike Johnston [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Leica prices

David R.

Price is only a problem when you DON'T own Leica. Once you've finally bought Leica you're glad it's overpriced (unless of cource you bought it on credit, in which case you won't be glad until you've paid the cards off). Leica gear is certainly a better investment than baseball cards

I tend to buy and sell camera gear a lot, in order to try different things. The worst investments I ever made were a new Exakta 66 and Schneider 80mm lens, which I had a really hard time finding a buyer for and lost my shirt on; and a used Hasselblad 500 C/M which I "rented" from xxxxxxxx (Ed: deleted) for a short amount of time and a usurious amount of money (I bought it from him for a high price and sold it back to him a few months later for an absurdly low price. That was the last time I dealt with him, come to think of it).

You lose more if you buy new, of course. I've also noticed that I tend to lose proportionally more on things people want less--offbeat or oddball older cameras, for instance. I guess I want them more when I buy them than the people I sell them to want them when I sell them.

The equipment I have lost the _least_ on over the years is Leica M gear. Used stuff really holds its value. If you have the spare cash to invest, you can almost use M stuff for free (well, you may lose the interest you may otherwise have earned). Buy smart and sell smart, and you can use $3,500 worth of gear for a couple of years for free or, at worst, the loss of a couple of hundred dollars, which works out to a very mild and reasonable rental charge.

I could have bought an M3 when I was in Photography School for $400-$600. Its value would have even kept up with inflation since then. 400-$600. Its value would have even kept up with inflation since then.

If you look at it that way, the "cost" of using Leica M gear is really pretty absurdly low. It would be very cheap right now for newcomers to try an M6, for instance. You can get users for $1300-$1500 and they're just not going to lose very much value--they may even gain value. A $1400 used M6 bought today is certainly not going to be worth $450 in three or four years, which might be the case with a new Wunderplastik AF 35mm. "Try an M6 for a year for free"--sounds like an ad campaign.

The only way it costs a lot is if you keep it, but by that time it's painless, because you've already parted with the money--and you've already decided it's worth it to you to keep.

- --Mike

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000
From: steven arterberry [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Leica acquisition question

Be advised that you should view any older Leica lens through a bright light source at wide open aperture to determine the degree of fogging. It is likely to have some. I understand that this resulted from the type of lubricant employed by Leitz

From Nikon MF Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000
From: Larry Kopitnik [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lens test

> I think that the 35/1.4 is one of the best lenses ever made by Nikkor. Much
> better than the 35/2. Are you sure of your results?

Hi Giorgio!

It was only 'Grumpy' that thought the lens was not great. All the other reports, here on this list and on different web pages, rate the lens highly.

I've recently been catching up with this list, because of some OneList problems, and regret not participating in the discussion of the 35 f/1.4 AIS Nikkor sooner.

Some posts a week or so back questioned comapring it with Leica 35 mm lenses. Before purchasing my 35 f/1.4 Nikkor, I asked some folks about this. In particular, Eric Welch, a former photojournalist who used to contribute to the "big list" and who still participates on the Leica list, wrote that he had used both. He said that he found the 35 f/1.4 Nikkor to be a little better that 1960s/1970s Leica 35 mm f/1.4 lens designs.

That makes sense. The 35 mm f/1.4 Nikkor design dates back to, if I remember correctly, 1969. It probably was the best when it was introduced. But since Leica has updated their M system 35 mm lenses (I don't know how old the Leica R system 35 mm designs are), and even Canon's current 35 mm f/1.4 EOS lens is a recent redesign. Advances in optical design over the last three decades, obviously, are reflected in the more current lens designs.

That said, I find the 35 f/1.4 Nikkor to be soft at its wider apertures but very good when closed down a couple stops and one of the best lenses I've used at around f/4 to f/5.6. The detail it has captured in shots at those apertures is amazing. Of course, one doesn't invest in an f/1.4 lens because he expects to reguarly be using it at f/5.6. But it's nice to know the quality is there when needed.

This is one lens (along with the 24 f/2 and 50 f/1.2) Nikon really needs to update to incorporate modern lens design advancements, and put its performance at the wider apertures on a level with current Leica and Canon offerings.

Larry

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Are Leica lenses really better?

OK Here goes this war again.

IMHO Leica makes terrific lenses. I shot with Leica for decades. Last body owned was R4. Many lenses. Always purchased new.

I traded all in on Nikon in early 90's. Here's where I'm gonna get hammered: I'm taking more and better photos now than I did then. In terms of quality, I cannot tell my Leica shots from my Nikon shots. Nor can my friends or editors. And, yes, I did and do sell lots of enlargements.

I understand that many say laboratory results confirm Leica's superiority. I understand many highly qualified people can tell the difference in their work. In MY life and work I cannot. Nikon's many, many convenient automated features in addition to their excellent lenses carried the day for me then -- and they still do.

I have no experience with Zuiko

[email protected] wrote:

> (and by "Leica lenses" I mean the ones made for Leica).
>
> Are they really better? If I thought they were really so much better
> then I would buy a Leica and its associated lenses (well at least a few
> of them). How do they compare with Zuiko lenses? Anyone compared them.
>
> Roland

[Ed. note: Mr. Romney is a noted photo repair book author...]
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000
From: ed romney [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Are Leica lenses really better?

> and if you really can't see any difference, you can dismiss your worries
> that you might be missing out on something.

Ed says: The answer here has several parts and I am going to be absolutely frank about all of it. Leica reflex lenses are superb but the reflex cameras, after the Leicaflex SL2, are troublesome and unreliable. ..like a Jaguar car. Germanophiles and status freaks put up with it....just the way they tolerate exotic European cars, but you'll see very few R type Leica reflexes in serious professional use. If I ran the company I'd dump all the Minolta XD-11 clones they call Leica and simply sell Leica lenses in some kind of adaptall mount for all cameras as Tamron does. All the pros would then buy them.

The M Leicas and screwmounts are a different story. They are wonderful cameras, all worth what they cost. The lenses are very fine too but I am not sure they are any better than top Nikon lenses. I have preferred the screwmount Leicas myself, but a lot of their lenses are not so hot-- including Summitar, 35mm Summaron and some of the teles. You will find selected Russian screw mt lenses and Canon lenses for Leica to be better and a good solution to all your problems. Test them first. The Japanese Voigtlander lenses for screw and bayonet mount are tempting and the camera will probably be worth while too when it gets its RF. I personally use a SM Leica with mostly Russian lenses and Nikon FE and FG with top Nikon lenses..The fast ones in the Nikon brand--- like 35mm F1.4 and 24mm F2 and 50mm F1.4 seem to be superior at all apertures. Moose Peterson has an honest book rating all these Nikon lenses you should all buy. Ignorant people will sell you all this Leica and Nikon equipment very cheaply because it is manual . My present near mint Leica IIIA cost $100 after I sold my IIIG for $1250!!!.The FG was given me!

As per Leica owners taking better pix by power of suggestion, I doubt it. The Leica stuff I have seen at shows and on Leica web pages is typical amateur.. If you want a landscape to look like an Ansel Adams photo, you have to find Ansel Adams lighting, ie just after a storm front or at dawn or dusk. Don't rely on the Leica lens to make it artistic and spectacular. It won't.

Best wishes.. Ed Romney .... For more see http://www.edromney.com

From Rollei Mailing LIst:
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2000
From: Edward Meyers [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Meters - innie or outie?

Bob, parts for mechanical cameras, such as the M5, are never "dried up", as you indeed know. For many years repairers have been using "parts cameras" to repair like units. The major problem with the M5, as Bob Schwalberg pointed out to me, since I have one, is that reassembling the finder innards takes lots of skill and time. It's a mechanical repair with tiny prisms to redo the paths of imagery in the pointers, etc. inside. The skilled reparers are too few for this. He told me never to drop my M5, or get rid of it. Still have it and love the spot meter. Ed

On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Bob Shell wrote:

> Marc,
>
> You are forgetting the glorious M5 and less-than-glorious CL.  You may
> not consider the CL a "real" Leica, but the M5 certainly is.  If I
> recollect right it came out in 1971, more than 16 years ago for sure,
> and I think parts for it are dried up already.
>
> Bob 

.....

Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999
From: "Carman, Edward C. III" [email protected]
To: "'[email protected]'" [email protected]
Subject: 39mm ltm lens sites

I read your posting about lack of sites. I agree. I would respond in the forum, but my computer here at work is not set up for the usenet. http://www.jetlink.net/~cameras/ltmlens.htm is a site dedicated to user classic & collectible cameras with an extensive discussion of leica screw-mount lenses, and, just as important, accessory finders. I have also turned up good information finding relevant threads using Dogpile usenet searches and the terms leica, russian, ltm, screwmount, etc. The following awkward cite is for a search for "russian" in the Leica Users Group pages: http://lq.corenetworks.com/lq/search.cgi?ln=leicausers&mid=&sp=&q=russian&b= 1&s=1&o=0 . Lots of opinions being aired there.

My own experience with my FED-2, an early-sixties model, and a leica IIIF, is that the modern Jupiter lenses are excellent in terms of their optical capability but very hard to focus accurately. I have a Jupiter 135mm lens that is outstandingly clean and sharp, but I can't quite place the depth of field where I want it for tight portraiture with either body. I'm not sure whether the rangefinder coupling is quite right. The Jupiter-9 85mm is supposed to be a very fine lens. It is big and fast, and a lot of glass for the money. Russars are said to be good. Basic Leitz screwmount lenses are not horribly expensive on ebay, but the problem is the fifties models, like the 90/4 elmar of my granddad's that I use, are prone to internal hazing that may not be apparent to the sellers of these lenses. The relative newness of the russian lenses may make up for any optical and mechanical difficulties. I also find ebay helpful, just in terms of having the opportunity to look at pictures and prices of various lenses.

I like the Fed-2 generally; it has a broad rangefinder base and the rangefinder is easy to adjust-I followed directions at http://www.ameritech.net/users/cameraman/resource.htm. I gave the rangefinder area a light internal cleaning (there was a dead moth inside) and this brightened up the rangefinder focusing area substantially.

On the other hand, the most consistently good pictures I take are with a Canonet QL-17 GIII. The lens and meter and dedicated flash are all super. Only the fixed 40mm lens is a little limiting. Some people have the meters recalibrated for a non-mercury battery, but the batteries I get at the camera store give me good exposures, so my sense is they are close enough even if they aren't an exact match.

I've enjoyed your site considerably. Please feel free to post this message if you think it is useful.

Edward C. Carman
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP
[email protected]

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2000
From: Mike Johnston [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] The lens to beat

I agree with you, but the same argument could be made when comparing an $149 Pentax lens with a $2495 leica version (for the average person). Bob Figlio

Bob,

Actually, you mean $185, the current cost of the SMC Pentax 50mm f/1.4 FA lens. The lens to beat in a 50mm f/1.4. I _think_ I like the Leica R version better (E55 filter thread, and my experience with it is too limited to know for sure), but neither the Leica M nor the Nokton (not to mention the Nikkor or the Zeiss SLR lenses) measure up IMHO.

Just my opinion...no flames please.

- --Mike

P.S. The big advantage of the 50mm Summilux-M is that it fits on the right camera. I can't deny that!

Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica M6? Why buy one? G2? Non-Leica lenses?

Contax G2 vs Leica M6TTL:

I went from Leica M4-P to a Contax G2 system and shot with it for two years. The Contax G2 is a very feature rich camera and well laid out, the lenses are excellent. After two years of using it, though, I decided that I just wasn't as comfortable with it in use as I was with the Leica M so I sold off the Contax kit and went to a Leica M6TTL. Either camera will take superb pictures. If the controls and working style of the Contax G suits you, it's a fine purchase. The key is whether you prefer the more automated approach to focus and exposure that the Contax provides vs the strictly manual control of the Leica.

Hexar RF lenses:

I haven't seen one in the flesh yet so have not tested personally for proof, but the Hexar RF's bayonet mount is supposed to be directly interchangeable with the Leica M bayonet.

Voigtlander camera and lenses:

These are all Leica Thread Mount which means they all work well on the Leica M with suitable Leica M-bayonet mount adapters. I've been shooting with the Heliar Aspheric 15 mounted on my Leica CL and M6TTL for several months now: it's a superb lens. I believe that Voigtlander is offering M-bayonet adapters and they're available on the used market easily. $60-90 apiece is the going rate.

It's very hard to justify the cost on purely rational terms for the Leica M cameras and lenses if you compare them to a top notch system like the Nikon (I have lots of Nikon gear too). But the Leica M just suits me very well, and the Leica lenses are stunning. The Summicron-M 35/2 ASPH is perhaps the sharpest and most beautiful 35mm lens I've ever worked with. I find that although I was reluctant to spend the money that an M6TTL and two Leica lenses costs, I find it money well spent and worth it in the end due to the wonderful pictures this camera and lenses produces.

Godfrey

Vtnn43e wrote:

> My husband has been considering getting an M6 TTL but has trouble justifying
> the cost. Is it really worth the money vs lets say a Contax G2 (which is his
> 2nd choice BTW). He is an advanced amateur shooter that would like to get a
> small manual or semi-manual to compliment his N70 outfit. Also the M or  the G2
> would be nice to take while travelling in Europe vs carrying the N70 and Nikkor
> primes.
> We know that opinions on these cameras can be very subjective but he would like
> any input that others out there would have on them.
>
> Will the new Hexar RF lenses work on the M6 without any adapter rings? Is
> Konica coming out with other lenses down the road?
>
> Voigtlander is coming out with some new lenses (see Pop Photo Oct 1999, page
> 116), a 35mm, a 50 and a 75mm. Will these work with the M6? What is needed to
> make them work on the M6? Will the 15mm work on the M6?
>
> Who makes adapter rings for the M6 and what do they cost?
>
> Thanks
> Debbie

Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999
From: "TravGlen" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica M6? Why buy one? G2? Non-Leica lenses?

Look at it this way Finney (may I call you Finney?), in a few months the Voigtlander Bessa-L RF will be out, and it will blow both the M6ttl and the G2, not to mention the Konica Hexar RF out of the water. As it is, my Bessa-L with the 15mm Heliar and 25mm Skopar are sharper than anything the Germans or Japanese are producing, and at 15% to 40% of the price.

Date: 29 Dec 1999
From: [email protected] (Paul Rubin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica M6? Why buy one? G2? Non-Leica lenses?

TravGlen [email protected] wrote:

>Look at it this way Finney (may I call you Finney?), in a few months the
>Voigtlander Bessa-L RF will be out, and it will blow both the M6ttl and the
>G2, not to mention the Konica Hexar RF out of the water.

Yeah right, an L-mount camera built on a cheap SLR chassis is going to blow out the Hexar and M6. In your dreams.

>As it is, my Bessa-L with the 15mm Heliar and 25mm Skopar are sharper
>than anything the Germans or Japanese are producing, and at 15% to
>40% of the price.

Same dreams. See Erwin Puts' Leica page where he tests these lenses. He says they are remarkable bargains, but in absolute terms they don't measure up to the (definitely much more expensive) Leica and Zeiss lenses.

See also Godfrey diGiorgi's page comparing the 15mm Heliar on an M camera vs. the 16mm Zeiss Hologon on the Contax G2. Same conclusion, more or less.

Paul Rubin [email protected] wrote:

>Same dreams.  See Erwin Puts' Leica page where he tests these lenses.
>He says they are remarkable bargains, but in absolute terms they don't
>measure up to the (definitely much more expensive) Leica and Zeiss lenses.
>
>See also Godfrey diGiorgi's page comparing the 15mm Heliar on an M camera
>vs. the 16mm Zeiss Hologon on the Contax G2.  Same conclusion, more or less.

Well, would you mind telling us the web URL of the Godfrey diGiorgi site? I have used both 15mm Heliar and 16mm Hologon. Neither one is superior. Sometimes the Heliar is sharper, sometimes the Hologon is sharper. Hologon has the distinct Zeiss colors when the Heliar is more of the typical Japanese colors.

If you check out the test bench reports done by Pop Photo, the Heliar actually performs better than the Hologon. I found the report was more consistent to my finding.

Can't comment on the Leica lenses.

-finney

Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999
From: R. Saylor [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica M6? Why buy one? G2? Non-Leica lenses?

>Well, would you mind telling us the web URL of the Godfrey diGiorgi site?

http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/welcome.html

Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica M6? Why buy one? G2? Non-Leica lenses?

> Heliar 15, Skopar 25, compared to Hologon 16, etc

My website is at . There is my informal testing of the Hologon 16 vs the Heliar 15 there, as well as some pictures taken with each.

The results of that testing, and of the past 5 months of shooting with the Heliar vs the previous 2 years use of the Hologon, are that I find the Heliar to be much more usable and handy for pictorial photography where the Hologon used with its matched graduated filter is definitely the superior set up for technical pursuits like architectural work. I've since sold my Contax G kit, including the Hologon.

What focal length is best depends upon you and your photography. I've not worked with the Skopar 25 but I expect it to be a fine lens. Is it a better performer than the Leica 24 ASPH? or Nikkor 24/2.8? Probably not, hard to say. Erwin Puts doesn't think so based upon his optical bench tests. But it might make just the photographs that work for you. I personally prefer the 20-21mm range over the 24-25mm, I like the additional coverage. But I can't afford the Leica 21 right now. The Heliar 15 has taken me a little while to accomodate to, it's an incredibly wide lens and easy to misuse, but I am now getting accustomed to it and really like it a lot.

> Bessa-L, Bessa RF compared to ...

The Bessa-L is based upon the same chassis and shutter that the Nikon FM10, FE10, Olympus OM-2000 and Yashica FX-3 SLRs are built on, but it's not the same thing. AFter all, it is a viewfinderless camera which sells for $250 vs an SLR which typically sells for under $200 with a lens. It's built to a higher standard of finish. It's a good chassis and shutter, has a good meter, and has a nicely finished skin, which is all it has. The area where the SLRs built on this chassis is weakest is in the viewfinder. For what it is and what it costs, I find the Bessa-L to be quite an excellent camera. No, it's not a Hexar RF or a Contax G or a Leica M. But it's a simple, quality made camera which can carry a good lens.

The Bessa RF is yet to come. If Cosina/Voigtlander does justice to the Bessa-L, I'd expect a similar simple, robust, quality rangefinder camera. It might not be so satisfying to the touch as a Leica M, might be a little crude in the viewfinder, but if it's got an accurate rangefinder and the rest is the same as the Bessa-L, and it sells in the $500 category, you betcha I think it will be a great camera. The market for interchangeable lens rangefinders is very top heavy with the Leica M, Contax G, Hexar RF. It will be good to see a low cost, quality RF camera like this. Rangefinder/Viewfinder cameras have charm which belies their apparent simplicity and the disadvantages in flexibility compared to SLRs.

> M vs G vs Hexar vs Bessa nonsense

All these cameras are very good, very much the premium instruments that their prices suggest. Working with any one of them is very different from working with an SLR.

The original post contained the suggestion that the person asking was looking for something to use as an adjunct to the SLR. All these cameras and lenses would do well in that capacity, they may indeed outstrip the use of the SLR if the photographer finds them more suitable for his needs. Which one is better than the other and at what level, for what purpose, is not particularly important as all of them will perform more than just satisfactorily. Which one suits the use and desires of the photographer is the question. And whether the prices are justifiable.

> point and shoot

Neither the Leica M nor Contax G is a point and shoot in the modern idiom. I agree that for a photographer they fit the model well, but they are not as competent as a "just point and shoot" as the Nikon N70 ... you have to focus them, you have to set the controls for the correct aperture, or aperture and shutter. You have to wind the Leica. Etc. While I find the Leica suits my needs extremely well and handles extremely fast, characterizing it as a point and shoot in the context of any modern discussion where such things as Olympus Stylus Epics are called point and shoot is incorrect.

Godfrey

[Ed. note such observations relate to old vs. new issues etc.] From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000
From: Ted Bradshaw [email protected]
Subject: Re: Field Curvature

[email protected] wrote:

> It's been my experience that there's very little field curvature with Leica
> lenses -- and that's going back to LTM days.

I'm not sure that I can agree with the latter part of your statement. The f3.5 35mm Elmar suffered from field curvature to quite an extent, varying from one sample to another, and my f3.5 35mm Summaron seems to be similarly afflicted, although perhaps not to the same extent.

It can be used creatively, however, although I would prefer a perfectly flat field given the choice.

Ted Bradshaw.

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Field Curvature

[email protected] writes:

When this kind of topic....."field curvature" comes up, may I ask those of you whom are knowlegeable and can readily identify what to look for in a photograph and where this "lens character" can be seen. Please post a description of what to look for and why it can be a bug-a-boo in some pictures and mean nothing in others?

Field curvature is the lens' inability to focus all points of a plane (such as a flat wall) on the film plane. This is usually manifested as either the center or corners being in sharp focus, but not the two together. This is not the same thing as a lens with decreasing resolution away from the image center, where in that case no amount of focusing will sharpen the corners. A lens with poor corner definition can have substantial field curvature and it won't matter because the corners are always soft, whereas a lens with superb overall resolving power but strong field curvature will show the effects more obviously.

Why it means more in some pictures than others: 1. If you aren't focusing a single, frame-filling flat-plane subject parallel on all axes to the film plane, you won't see field curvature unless it is extraordinarily severe (this is why so-called "flat-field" lenses are important mostly for copy work and projection of glass-mounted slides). 2. Stopping down for more DOF will reduce the effects of field curvature. Again, you can see why a flat-field lens would be particularly useful in macro copy work, such as photographing postage stamps (flat, full-frame subject, very little DOF). Of all the "aberrations" a lens can have, field curvature (unless it's quite severe) would be the one I'd worry least about. The 2-element 400 and 560mm Telyts (such as for the VISO and R-series), as most achromats, exhibit quite high field curvature. But these lenses aren't normally used for flat subjects. Wildlife or sports subjects (central subject in focus, blurred background)would not be hampered by the field curvature.

Hope this helps!

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Old Dogs, New Tricks

Hold tight, guys. I CAN listen and learn. And, so I did.

I was researching the introduction date of the Reid camera, and turned to that rather fascinating book by Hans P. Rajner, LEICA COPIES, a book worthy of being in your libraries, despite its several growling errors. His entry on the Reid taught me a bit.

The Allied Control Commission (consisting of the UK, French, US, and USSR) issued what Herr Rajner calls a 'Control Council Law' (though I challenge the translation: 'Kontrollratsgesetz' means something more along the lines of 'Control Commission Ruling', I suspect), under which all German patents were seized by the Commission. A year later, the Allies entered into the 'London Agreement' under which they agreed among themselves that such patents were to be made available to their citizens for free use.

Hence, I am not certain of the legal authority for the Wollensak LTM lenses or the Reid camera itself: either the Alien Properties Acts of the UK and US, or the London Agreement, but, beyond this, ich weisse ist nicht.

(sigh) I need a rich patron or a lottery win to allow me the time and space to visit the US National Archives, the UK's Public Records Office, the Zeiss Jena and Oberkochen archives, und so weiter.

Ach, Ach, Mein Gott, what a bloody fine lot/Are the Ragtime Infantry!

But, folks, I do stand corrected, and I am yet learning the intricacies of just how and why Ukrainian Kiev RF's and KMZ Moskvas appeared!

Marc

[email protected]

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 03 Apr 2000
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Bessa R

Over the weekend I got my first Bessa R.

I'm very impressed by it. To my eyes, the R's finder, brightlines, and rangefinder patch are as bright as a M6. I find that remarkable. The finder is definitely better than the Hexar RF's, in the those respects. Like the M's, you can focus the image by converging images within the interior RF patch, or by matching up the edges of the RF patch.

Compared to the earlier L, the Bessa R's shutter is quieter (though still louder than the M6), and the back door has been beefed up -- though it is still plastic. The framelines are manually selectable, 35 and 90, 50, and 75. This would seem to indicate a future 90 lens in the Voigtlander lineup.

The 3 LED finder readout is just as easy, if not easier to read, than the M6.

Voigtlander has a real winner here, a very nice nice camera.

By the end of the week I hope to have more pics of the R at my site, as well as a picture of the new 12/5.6.

I have more info at http://cameraquest.com/voigrf.htm

Stephen Gandy

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 01 Jul 1999
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Bessa R

initially I will be selling the bodies for $750

As supply catches up to demand, prices will go down to $650 within 6 mo or so, or at least that is my guess.

Stephen

From Panoramic Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000
From: Willem-Jan Markerink [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: How about the new Heliar 15mm (Cosina) for 360 deg pan ?

[email protected] wrote:

>  Now my problem . Since  Heliar is not retrofocus design the rear element
> stick into the camera body. So i cannot mount the lens to the body via rear
> lens cap.
> Question. What thread is the leica screw mount ???  I know it is 39 mm but
> what pitch ?

Officially, *very* officially: 1/25 inch. But apart from Leica, everyone seems to use 1mm (which is fairly close, but the difference has been known to cause problems, as per Marc James Small), but for the application at hand this is probably irrelevant.

>  Any easier solution of getting the mounting plate cheap ?
> Machining one out of thick metal is probably not going to be cheap. and i
> don't think extension tube is available for leica screw mount ,Or is it ??

Novoflex makes an abundance of M39 adapters, M39-lens to various camera mounts, if that can suit your project.... (as well as the other way around btw, which makes mounting *any* lens to *any* camera possible, by using M39 as the intermediate/mating system....but this only works for macro, since infinity focus is most likely screwed up (too much extension)) in any permutation)

For more data about camera & lens mounts, see my homepage:

http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm

(or /mounts.htm directly)

--
Bye,

Willem-Jan Markerink

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re:

If you think cameras are for taking pictures don't ever attend a Leica group meeting. You will see cameras proudly on display still in their sealed factory plastic bags!!! And the ones that are out of the bags, don't think of picking one up to look at. I nearly gave the owner of one heart failure when I reached for it!!!! He took some white cotton gloves out of his pocket and had me put them on prior to handling the camera.

I'm not making this up, really.

Bob

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 09 Aug 1999
From: "G. Lehrer" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: small leica question

....

Andre

You may think I am kidding, but the best Leica M series camera is:

The Minolta CLE

For further info, look up Steven (Stephen?) Gandy's web site.

Jerry

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2000
From: Tom Finnegan [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Jupiter Lenses

As promised, I've posted a somewhat random sampling of pictures taken with the 50/1.5 and 85/2 to the MSN site. My scanning and PhotoShop skills are rather limited, so hopefully the pictures appear ok on different monitors. Not a great deal can be discerned about lens quality from a low resolution scan displayed on a computer monitor, but I think it's safe to say that the pictures at least demonstrate that the lenses will in fact record an image onto film. Always an important consideration in lens selection. The link is given below, and the album is titled 'Random Shootings', and it should appear at the bottom of the page.

http://beta.content.communities.msn.com/Leicausers/PhotoAlbum

Tom Finnegan
Seattle

P.S. - I apologize for the numerous pictures of my daughter, but she seems to mysteriously slip into many of my pictures.

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2000
From: "Doug Richardson" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: Jupiter-3 image quality

Tom Finnegan [email protected] wrote:

I started off by buying a 50/1.5 Jupiter-3 off of EBay for $75... I was pleasantly surprised to see how well the Jupiter performed in practice for a lens that was designed in the 1930's and built in 1956.

The patent date on the Sonnar (of which the Jupiter is a copy) is 1933, so you're talking about early 1930s optical technology.

A couple of weeks back I was taking some photos in the British Museum. Most of the time I used a Noctilux, but for four subjects I took the same pic with the Noctilux, a pre-war uncoated 5cm Sonnar lens, and with a Russian (coated) Jupiter-3 Sonnar copy, and with the Noctilux.

Once the slides had been processed, I shuffled each of the four 'shoot-offs' into random order, then used a lupe to sort them in terms of perceived image quality. There was no clear winner, so I concluded that the small amount of variation I was seeing between the three lenses was probably the effect of camera shake at 1/30 sec.

When I get some more free time, I might repeat the exercise under more controlled conditions, and a subject where I can use a tripod to eliminate camera shake.

Of course, in the era when lenses were hand assembled, there could be significant variations between individual examples, and this was probably particularly true for Soviet factories.

Regards,

Doug Richardson

>My sister is shortly going on a tour of the baltic countries
>and parts of the former USSR. Having noticed the favorable comments on some of the 
>photographic equipment available in these areas I am interested in what is
>suitable and readily available. 

>Marc - When you say "great" user lens, what do you mean? How good optically
>compared to modern Leitz lenses?

>Roger Hicks in his book "A History of the 35mm Still Camera" Focal Press 1984 
>ISBN 0-240-51233-2
>
>In his brief blurb on the Sonnars:
>"It was left to Zeiss to introduce a really fast triplet derivative. They did 
>this in 1932 with the f/2 and f/1.5 Sonnars. The f/2 has a single front glass, a 
>triplet centre, and a doublet rear, and the f/1.5 has a triplet rear. Because 
>they are still essentially triplets, with only six glass-air surfaces, they are 
>still adequately contrasty, but they pay for their simplicity in other ways. The 
>f/2 is a good deal more than acceptable, and by f/5.6 or f/8 the initially 
>rather poor edge definition sharpens up considerably. The f/1.5, on the other 
>hand, is sharp enough centrally but never really pulls in the edges"
>
>There was an article in LHSA Viewfinder a while back (forget by who) on another 
>Sonnnar clone, the 50/1.4 Nikkor, in which the author describes the same problem 
>at the edges, even stopped well down.
>
>Has this been your experience with the Sonnar and Jupiter?

>I am not familiar with "Kingslake's analysis of the design". What is it?
>
>And you would argue, I suppose, the the Soviets were in a better moral position, war booty and all that.
>
>The Soviets, on the other hand just kept churning out the same designs....
>Maybe some minor improvements on the wide angle side.

>Back in the days before I traded darkroom for kids, 16"x20" prints were the
>final output of my photographic labourings. There's just no way those
>Soviet lenses could cut it at enlargements that size.

>So, there we are. For anyone hankering after a f/1.5 Jupiter or a 20mm
>Russar - the lenses may be one hundredth of the price (!), but if large
>prints are required, stick to Leitz!

>I am not familiar with other equipment. I know that Leica no longer makes an
>85mm lens. Who does?

>which 85mm lens would you recommend? Any year better than another?

 
>I too am perhaps interested in a less expensive but sharp and reliable lens for my IIIf.
>Do you have a 90mm lens available or know where I might find one? What other options might you have?

>Do you have any idea of how the Russian 20mm M lenses compare in 
>sharpness and flare with the Canon 19mm/f3.5 lens? How about compared to 
>the three Leica 21mm lenses? 

>The 5.6/20 Russar MR-2 DOES meter with the M6:  I have one and it works!

>-just to clarify this; do you find the ttl metering is accurate when
>used with slide film?

- --------------------------------------------
              Charles E. Dunlap
         Earth Sciences Deptartment
          University of California
            Santa Cruz, CA 95064
Tel.: (408) 459-5228    Fax.: (408) 459-3074
- --------------------------------------------

>Does anyone use this lens? any particular qualities? i.e Is it any good?!

>1) Convenience: the Russar requires an LTM adaptor and this can't be left
>on when the rear lens cap is on. In practice the mounting and unmounting
>and stowing are a bit cumbersome if you use the lens frequently.

>Does anyone use this lens? any particular qualities? i.e Is it any good?!

>I just wish the Leica lens would work on my IIIF. I have a "21" (non-ASPH),
> & love it, but I probably will buy the 21 screw mount from Adorama at some
>point this year. If you're looking for something cheaper than the Leica
>lens, that one is probably the way to go. 

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 11 May 2000
From: Jem Kime [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] Third party M39 lenses

Uwe,

I've a Ricoh 28mm lens and find its fine, better than the first generation Leica-M Elamrit 28mm which I compared it with (price for price), and according to other tests better than all except the latest 28mm Leica lens.

What's more, and this was the deciding factor for me, it's size is such an advantage but I'd prefer a hood with cutouts. Finally the price was good too.

Jem

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] OT: Voigtlander RF versus Contax

Well, You are comapring an AF with a Manual Focus Rangefinder. The Voigtlander uses the defunct Leica screw mount mount, and the Contax its own mount.

Now if you are really looking for the best Rangefinder you can get today, consider the new Konica Hexar RF. I currently have one with the 28, 50, and 90mm lenses and cannot say enough good things about it. It is a motorized rangefinder camera that can also use Leica M mount lenses as well. Its great if you already own Leica lenses, but also once you try the new optics that Konica debuted along with the Camera you will not need to look any further. They are every bit as good as Leica M-glass.

This is the camera that Leica should have made, but of course they are driven by inertia....standing still in the face of progress!!

-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Goldstein [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, May 14, 2000 12:14 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] OT: Voigtlander RF versus Contax

Shooters:

Thinking of getting a modern rangefinder system w/interchangeable glass... would appreciate any thought/recommendations on the new Voigtlander R versus the Contax G2. All I've ever heard is that the Contax glass is just superb and the prices for both systems seems comparable (roughly) with the Contax featuring autofocus and power advance. On the flip side, I've read that the viewfinder(s) on the new R is tops...

Would appreciate any insights... Thanks.

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 16 May 2000
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Cosina RF versus Contax

you wrote:

>But Marc,
>
>Aside Cosina, is Leica, Canon, or Pentax still making opitcs with that
>mount?

Pentax never did make LTM lenses to my knowledge. Canon's last sales in LTM were from around 1980, though the lenses were probably manufactured in the late 1960's. Leica is currently selling lenses in LTM, yes.

But do not sell either Zorki or FED short: between them, they produced around TEN TIMES as many LTM cameras as did all those German and Japanese companies put together. And FED is still cranking them out.

Marc

[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Cosina RF versus Contax

Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:

>OK.  So Leica and two Russian lens makers use the ancient thread mount.  I
>retract my use of defunct.  How about passe?

I hope you pay more attention to detail on your technical work than you have on this thread!

One Ukrainian manufacturer currently makes lenses and cameras in LTM, and has done so with one small break since the middle 1930's. Several Russian companies still make lenses in LTM ranging from the 5.6/20 Russar MR-2 to the 4/135 Jupiter-11. Leica manufactures three lenses in LTM. And several Japanese companies are either manufacturing LTM gear or are considering doing so.

Passe? No. The most successful lens-mount in history? Yes.

Marc

[email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 17 May 2000
From: Bob Shell Subject: Re: [Rollei] Cosina RF versus Contax

Also, a Japanese optical house which makes a 24 and 28 mm, sold in the USA by Adorama. I have one of each and they are pretty darned good. New versions are coming soon stated to be improved and I've slated Roger Hicks to test them for us. I don't know who Yasuhara is getting his lenses from, but his camera is Leica thread mount as well.

Bob

....

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2000
From: Chandos Michael Brown [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian superwide??Re: [Leica] Jim's Lens Selection

I used the Russar 20/5.6 extensively for a couple of years and was delighted with the results (many examples on my website). I sold it on eBay a few months ago for e cost of a new Heliar 15. I'd acquired the 21/2.8 Biogon, which is vastly superior to the Russar, and didn't feel the need to duplicate the focal length (ie: I now use the 15 and 21). My understanding is that there's considerable variation in the build quality of the Russian optics. I had a very good one (equal, in my opinion, to the Heliar), but you might want to be careful to buy on approval. For what it's worth, they seem to have become comparatively scarce--at least if the web is any indication. Stephen Gandy has a useful review on his site, the url of which I am constantly misplacing. Someone on the LUG will post it.

Chandos

Chandos Michael Brown
Assoc. Prof., History and American Studies
College of William and Mary

http://www.wm.edu/CAS/ASP/faculty/brown

[Ed. note: many of the earlier designed and as-built lenses had optical defects such as spherical aberrations and flare which give them a unique "glow" or feel (see bokeh) in actual use...]

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 2000
From: "B. D. Colen" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] Build Quality of Lenses

Fair enough...I just get tired hearing about the legendary "glo," which is, optically speaking, legendary inferiority - the reason, in fact, that many PJs in Korea and even later where mounting Nikon and Canon lenses on their Leicas. But of course there are times when that kind of sharpness just doesn't cut it (forgive me, Steve!:-) )

B. D.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Steve
> LeHuray
> Sent: Wednesday, June 21, 2000 12:08 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Build Quality of Lenses
>
>
> > The "look" is the optical inferiority of lenses of that era.:-)
> They have
> > more flare, more fall-off at the edges, etc. etc. Call it Leica
> glow, call
> > it Coke Bottle Bottom, the bottom line is that it isn't something lens
> > designers were trying to achieve, it is simply the best they
> could achieve
> > given the tools they had.
> >
> > One may like the "glow," but it doesn't make a lot of sense to
> tout it as
> > "superior" to the images produced by modern lenses.
> >
> > I note that having gone from the Pre-asph 21 to the ASPH 21 for
> the M, while
> > I was thrilled with the pre-asph when I used it, the results I
> get with the
> > ASPH are far superior, in terms of edge-to-edge sharpness, lack
> of flare,
> > and lack of light fall off...
> >
> > B. D.
> >
> >
> B.D.
> I do not disagree with anything that you say about the 'look' in fact I am
> pretty sure that I understand (finally) everything (well almost) Erwin has
> said on this point. To me the razor sharpness of modern lenses is not real
> important to me for everything that I shoot. We have all heard about the
> 'glow' and, I think there is something to that even when I compared my
> current Summicron 50mm with a Nikor 50/1.4 I could see a glow
> that the razor
> sharp Nikor did not have. For me what lens I use boils down to what I am
> shooting and the effect that I would like to achieve.
> Steve
> Annapolis

Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2000
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.misc,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: A good rangefinder

The new Voigtl�nder Bessa-R is what you are thinking of. It's quite a bit higher than your price point (about $670 for the body, I recall) and takes Leica screw mount lenses, not the current series M-bayonet lenses. Voigtl�nder produces an excellent series of lenses for it, from 15mm to 75mm focal lengths, which are reasonably priced ($400-$600) and very high quality. Although not the equal of Leica equipment, this is excellent quality kit and can produce results that are nearly indistinguishable except under critical side by side examination.

The Bessa-R is featured prominently on the Cosina website at http://www.cosina.co.jp/; Cosina produces the Voigtl�nder products. I don't know where the same information is available on an english language website yet.

If your budget cannot stand up to these kinds of prices (and I don't know about anyone else but I haven't found a good user Leica M + lens worth buying for under $1000 lately), there are many options in fixed-lens rangefinders on the used market for not a lot of money. The Canonets and Minolta equivalents are very good, the Konica S3 which has been mentioned is excellent, the Olympus SP is excellent. The original Voigtl�nder Vito B with Skopar f/3.5 or f/2.8 are superb, as is the Voigtl�nder Prominent. In Russian Leica and Contax clones, the Fed and Kiev cameras cam be good quality and go for very little money, but be aware that Russian cameras suffer from extremely variable quality control. Take a hunt through Ebay and you'll find lots of these cameras available at very reasonable prices. Don't constrain yourself to requiring electronic shutters and auto exposure, the options are much broader without those constraints.

The Leica M remains the top of the heap for its superb construction quality and unbeatable lenses, but the price is daunting. The curious thing I find is that even at the exorbitant prices they return excellent value for money, and they last almost literally forever while holding their value well.

Godfrey

Sheheryar Hasnain wrote:

> Thanks for your helpful advice.  One question:
> I just read that Voitlander has brought out a rangfinder that is Leica
> mount.  I have heard of other rangfinders that are Leica mount.  So if I were
> to purchase this and a good Leica lens, wouldnt the pics pretty much be
> equivalent to images created from a Leica?  I realize the legendry durability
> of a Leica but if one doesnt let a tank go over it, wouldnt a Voitlander and
> Leica lens do the trick?  Again, thanks for all of your input.
> Sheheryar

From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Leica Lens Aberrations -- True or False?
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000

"...it remains Leitz policy not to design lenses purely to achieve high resolution of flat two dimensional test charts, but deliberately to leave intact a modest degree of aberration and curvature of field to improve the rendition of three dimensional subjects." Collecting and Using Classic Cameras, Ivor Matanle, Thames and Hudson 1986.

Is that statement true? Does Leica intentionally design lenses this way?

A lot of people have claimed on this newsgroup that Leica lenses have a particular look. If this statement is true, perhaps this look is explainable to the satisfaction of the more skeptical among us.

From: Brian Walsh [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Leica Lens Aberrations -- True or False?

The degree of correction for spherical aberration may be an important element in lens design; perhaps it's what gives, say, the Contax 85/1.4 and the Pentax FA*85/1.4 lenses their nice "look" ;^)

Regarding design choices to achieve a "Leica look", you might consider the following from Erwin Putz at

http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/courses/course.html

"Current Leica thinking in lens design is to opt for a high contrast and a high resolution, and many of their lenses show clearly the advantages of this approach . . . Older lenses had a lower contrast and thus a lower resolution, not because of particular design goals, but because the state of the art at those decades did not allow for better imagery."

And:

"When testing a lens on an optical bench, we look at the plane of focus to assess the image quality. But is is very easy to defocus slightly before and after the plane of focus. The tester then can simulate the out of focus areas quite well by looking at the image when defocusing in small increments. Any optical design program can accomplish this. . . "

And, finally:

"Optical performance is not to be confused with the perception of an image . . . When talking about image perception we walk into a totally different realm of lens evaluation. Here personal opinions abound and every opinion is as good as any other."

(FWIW, I might not recognize a "Leica glow" if it bit me. Even if I could mount those lenses on my range finder, I don't think the "glow" would illuminate much more than the middle of the frame :( )

Brian

Colyn wrote:

>  [email protected] wrote:
>
> >"...it remains Leitz policy not to design lenses
> >purely to achieve high resolution of flat two dimensional
> >test charts, but deliberately to leave intact a modest
> >degree of aberration and curvature of field to improve the
> >rendition of three dimensional subjects." Collecting and
> >Using Classic Cameras, Ivor Matanle, Thames and Hudson
> >1986.
> >

From: [email protected] (Donelpgh)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 13 Jul 2000
Subject: Russian RF- New Voigtlander Lenses?

I'm very impressed with the new Voigtlander stuff. I dug up the mid-1990s Popular Photography issue that had the lens tests of the 50/2 Summicron and the 50/2.8 Elmar and compared the results to the 50/1.5 Nokton and the 45/2 Contax G Planar. The Nokton showed small but clear superiority in their objective testing... though the Planar was the best of the three. It would seem the new pecking order in the RF optical world is Contax/Voigtlander/Leica, at least as far as 45-50mm is concerned.

I've been thinking about getting a Russian FED screw-mount body from ebay for $35 and using it to give the Voigtlander lenses a try, and buy a Bessa-R later if I am happy. (I don't normally shoot 35mm). Is there any reason this won't work? Will a FED-5B focus the 50mm Nokton accurately enough if I stop it down to at least f/2.8 or f/4? Are the 35mms at least reasonably reliable? I know the Russian MF cameras have a lot of issues.

From: [email protected] (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Russian RF- New Voigtlander Lenses?

Donelpgh [email protected] wrote:

> Are the 35mms at least reasonably reliable?  I know
> the Russian MF cameras have a lot of issues.

Nothing really wrong with those FEDs. Had one here for evaluation and eventually gave it back because of the rotten viewfinder. I'm told there's a version with a larger finder which even has luminous frames for the various focal lengths. The one I had didn't and it was so small it was a real nuisance. Otherwise the camera looked and worked OK. Had the usual Industar lens, nothing to write home about but then again I'm used to the almost obscene sharpness of my Zeiss Contarex lenses.

Cheers,
Ralf

--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K�ln/Cologne, Germany
Ralf's Cologne Tram Page - www.netcologne.de/~nc-radermra

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000
From: John Collier [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] RF Adjustment for Zorki 2 (Leica II Copy)

Sorry for the late reply but I tagged it then forgot about it until now. I do not know if the Zorki is the same as a Leica II but here goes for the Leica II:

The vertical alignment adjustment is done by rotating the rangefinder window on the front of the camera which is closest to the shutter dial. The window is really a small prism and it can rotate a full 360 degrees

The horizontal adjustment at infinity is made by first removing the cover screw on the front of the camera next to the viewer window. The adjustment screw then can be reached through this hole. It is not uncommon for the adjusting screw to be seized and require the top to come off to get at the rangefinder to free it.

John Collier

> From: [email protected] (Hans-Peter Lammerich)
>
> Some folks explained how to do a rangefinder adjustment on a M2/3/4, but
> can one explain how to do it on a Zorki/Leica II. I bought it cheap (DM
> 100) and mainly as a decoration pice and substitute for the real stuff
> and thus hesitate to give it away for service.

From: David Littlewood [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: Russian Camera

BT Internet News [email protected] writes

>I picked up a Zenit-E 35mm SLR camera in a boot sale, paid �0.50 for it.
>It's in full working order, the shutter release operates, the shutter opens
>and closes (at the right speed, who knows!!).  It has a built in light
>meter, which is kinda neat, has a needle movement and an aperture dial that
>is rotated to figure out shutter speed.
>
>It came with a Helios lens, which appears to be a 58mm at f2 (?).  This lens
>is very clean with no obvious damage to the glass.  It's a little different
>to the nikkors I'm used to, the aperture ring is at the front and it has a 
>sliding ring that will close the aperture to give you DoF preview.  I think
>it might be a macro lens, it'll focus amazingly close, like 10 - 12 inches.
>
>Does anyone know anything about this camera and lens?  Is there a website
>devoted to Russian cameras?  I've tried looking, but to no avail.  It's a
>fun, neat little camera and I'd like to learn a little more about it.

I started in SLR photography with a Zenit-E in 1971. I had great fun with it, and took some good pictures (and a lot of bad ones, mostly my fault. Cost about UKP 28-30 in 1971, IIRC.

The camera is built like a tank (and weighs nearly the same as a tank). The shutter speed range is a bit limited (1/30 - 1/500 plus B, IIRC) and it was, in the end, the increasing unreliability of the shutter release that finally prompted me to retire it in 1976.

The uncoupled meter suffers from the inconsistencies always shown by such things - it tends to be confused by bright skies and anything else uneven - but it works if you get used to it. Yours may be suffering from old age (it is a selenium photovoltaic cell, needs no batteries, but they tend to get a bit weak as they age AIUI). You should check it (by comparison with a known good meter, or by a test roll of slide film - not print film) before relying on it.

The lens you have, the 58 mm f/2 Helios, was the standard lens for the camera when new (late 60s - early 70s). It was a decent performer once stopped down a couple of stops, but rather soft wide open. Its aperture control is a system known as "preset diaphragm" and has no couping with the body. Here is how you do it. Meter the scene and calculate exposure. Set the shutter speed on the camera body, and the aperture on the click- stopped ring (IIRC it is the rear one) of the two at the front with f/stops marked on them. The other (front) ring - the stop-down ring - has no f/stops, and it is used to switch the lens from f/2 (wide open) to the aperture "preset" (hence the name) on the click stopped ring. With the lens wide open, compose and focus, then rotate the stop-down ring to close to the pre-set aperture. Then take the picture.

It sounds cumbersome, but in practice it takes longer to describe than to do. I must confess though I lost count of the number of "nuclear holocaust" pictures I took by forgretting the final stop-down stage!

There used to be a wide range of third-party preset diaphragm lenses available at the time; in fact, they were for a few years the commonest form of SLR lenses, being equally at home on the Pentax/Practika models of the time (the M42 x 1mm thread was in fact known as Pentax/Praktika at the time). They were superseded over the following few years by automatic diaphragm (FAD = Fully Automatic Diaphragm) lenses, in which a pin in the camera body automatically stopped the lens down on taking the shot. With appropriate electronic enhancements, this is still the system today.

I still have my old Zenit living in honourable retirement in my wardrobe, with a selection of preset lenses. I may even have the instruction book about somewhere, if I can remember where it is. Let me know (replace nospam by dlittlewood to e-mail) if you can't find one one the web and I will try to find it.

Hope you have fun with it, and hope this helps.

--
David Littlewood
London - Energy Consultant and Photographer

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 25 May 2000
From: "wei zhang" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Jupiter

Well, from what I can see that most of zeiss lenses which are affordable are mostly the non-coated ones. And actually Jupiter lenses are not so bad really considering the Zeiss mount lenses are no longer built, and another alternatives are Nikkor lenses made for Nikon S rangefinder series. I just bought mine 35mm Jupiter-12 lens in black in leica screwmount brand new for $140. And same glass for Kiev in Contax mount (contax rangefinder mount) for $40.00, what a difference!

They say it's purely demand and supply (in Russia, they have same price). Strange, personally I don't like K88 very much since they are loud and always has light leaking problem and internal flare (needs to flock the interior...), I would rather use K60. I have and will never use the non-zeiss lenses with modern contax T mount adapter. It's poor quality and the diapham is just not auto... I must say.

However, I would consider to try the early Zeiss Jena lenses made in M42 mount through, some for Prakticas and some other... just try and see if there's anything with the quality. Considering how decent prices are for the basic zeiss prime lenses, it's not really worth to use others.

Wei

>From: muchan [email protected]
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [CONTAX] Jupiter
>Date: Thu, 25 May 2000 
>
>
>wei zhang wrote:
> >
> > One guy I know that he's selling Russian cameras and lenses, his name is
> > Yuri and his email address is [email protected]
> > Also try Mike Fourman of Kiev camera.  Avoid KievUSA as much as you can
> > since they are the highest price in this country i believe.
> >
> > Wei
> >
>
>I heard that in Osaka, Japan, one shop is now doing Kiev sales campaign,
>that you get Kiev88 and one of lenses for $150. -- surely cheaper than
>KievUSA?
>
>-- but getting non-Zeiss lens and adopter, because Zeiss is too expensive,
>doesn't seem me economic decision... You save money for adopter, and then
>you can get Zeiss lens sooner.. anyway, you'll pay the Zeiss someday.
>Using antique lenses on modern cameras, ( "lens bashing" a la Bob) seems
>me a hobby for people who already have these lenses, before getting today's
>lenses... well if "bashing" is your hobby, I don't need to stop you,
>though.
>
>muchan

From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000
Subject: Re: FM2n - a poor man's Leica?

"Only me..." wrote:

> > That certainly is an option for some, depending on your needs. But again, the
> > Contax Users Pages have some very interesting things to say about why comparing
> > the two is like comparing apples and oranges . . .
>
>     This is true, but it's more fair than comparing it to a FM2 ;-)

I'm kind of amazed to see this thread continuing on still!

Having owned and used Nikon FMs, Leica Ms and Contax Gs extensively, I disagree. Although one is a rangefinder and the other an SLR, the Nikon FM and the Leica M6 are far closer in how you use them best than either is to a Contax G camera. Both of the former are simple, manual, mechanical cameras with minimal 'features': they have a good accurate shutter, excellent lenses, and simple lever action film wind. That's it. Yes, you focus one differently from the other, it's not such a big deal. Fit the Nikon with a K2 screen and you have a split image rangefinder, the SLR analogue of the Leica M's coincident type coupled rangefinder. Either can take a motorized film transport accessory. Etc etc.

With a Contax G2, you have MANY other options:

- SAF, CAF or MF focusing mode?
- AE or manual exposure modes?
- use of AELock and AFLock?
- interactions between the focus and motorized film transport modes?
- use of autobracketing modes?
- +/- EV compensation modes in autoexposure?

and so on. The Contax Gs are operationally a different type of camera compared to the Nikon FM2n and Leica M6.

Godfrey

[Ed. note: a noted Leica lens tester on real versus rumored performance..]
Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2000
From: "Erwin Puts" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Summicron performance

The story that the collapsible Summicron was the sharpest lens 2/50 that Leitz had made for up to that time and might be the best 2/50 of its time, is upheld by collectors and second hand sellers as it is part of the mystique and upgrades the value of the merchandise. True optical performance is a different matter and I have written extensively about it and I not going to repeat it. The only people who disagree with my assessment are the collector oriented and the collector-user type of Leica users. The reference to "its time" is very vague. The lens has been introduced in 1954. Its time is that year, the whole decade? And for descriptive value: "sharpness" is not an objective property of a lens, it is a subjective notion which can not be quantified and so is as a quality criterium a debatable attribute. So what looks like a neat description is in fact a very vague and subjective impressionistic sketch.

Most standard references (Leica books and articles) repeat the marketing writings of those days and the text in the Leica collector's checklist. There is however preciously little hard evidence for this descriptions, however rosy one wishes to look at the performance of these old Leica lenses.

Erwin

From Leica Topica Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 5 Aug 2000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Leica to Nikon

[email protected] writes:

First of all, R cameras are not just liptsick on the corpse. There are major difference from Minoltas. The higher the numbers, the fewer the Minolta parts. It doesn't take Sherlock Holmes to figure that one out. The major similarity was the body shell.

Sherlock Holmes never saw the guts of a Leica R3-R7 splayed out on a repair bench next to its Minolta brother, and I'm guessing neither have you, or you couldn't possibly make that statement in seriousness. The body shells are in fact the most exclusively Leica part. Aside from the lensmount and its linkages and the linkage that mechanically slides a baffle across the meter cell to make the averaging meter "selective", the R3-R7 are re-skinned Minoltas. The parts in the later models might not have been made in Japan at the Minolta factory but functionally they're the same, with the exception of the TTL flash circuitry and minor modifications here and there. The R7 has a beefed-up film transport. There's no question that Leica made refinements along the way to address some of the reliability problems, but those cameras are still fundamentally the same Minoltas they were at the beginning. Ask an independent repairman (not a Leica employee) and those who know the cameras will substantiate this, probably with more detail.

From Leica Topica Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000
From: Eric Welch [email protected]
Subject: Re: Leica to Nikon

[email protected] wrote:

> Sherlock Holmes never saw the guts of a Leica R3-R7 splayed out on a repair
> bench next to its Minolta brother, and I'm guessing neither have you, or you
> couldn't possibly make that statement in seriousness.  The body shells are in
> fact the most exclusively Leica part.  Aside from the lensmount and its
> linkages and the linkage that mechanically slides a baffle across the meter
> cell to make the averaging meter "selective", the R3-R7 are re-skinned
> Minoltas.

Flat out wrong.

Minolta makes the body shells. There are TWO meter cells, one in the viewfinder for average metering, and one in the floor of the body for selective metering. (Thus the beam splitter.) The film advance USED to be the same, but Leica beefed it up in the R7. The prism is silvered, rathern than aluminazed as in the Minolta. And the shutter is a Leica/Copal design.

Please, stop spreading these long-ago proved myths.

As a matter of fact, I have seen them gutted.

--

Eric Welch

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2000
From: "Erwin Puts" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Summicron quality

When the first Summicron arrived on the market in 1954, it was a 7-element lens with some novel properties, the air space in the split front lens being the most obvious. With the help of new glasses, colour correction was very good and so was resolution. Contrast was very low at the wider apertures and you needed to stop down to f/4 to get really good quality. The Voigtlander Ultron 2/50 of the same period used the same glasses from a British company and was in the same legue. The second Summicron from 1957, the rigid one and the DR which has the identical formula, was improved with higher overall contrast at wider apertures, but at thet same time the Nikkor-H 2/50 for the F and the Zeiss Planar 2/50 for the Contarex were very close in performance. Leitz introduced the 6-element Summicron for the R in 1964 with an improved design philosophy, clearly out distancing the M-brother and the competition. Nikon countered with the new Nikkor-H 2/50 and Zeiss did nothing.

So whatever the relative performance of the 7-element Summicron in both versions, there was even in its day strong and serious competition, and after 1964 the design was made obsolete by Leitz themselves. Anybody can see this for themselves, when reading the relevant reporting and a correct description of the status of the Summicron 7-element would be: "In 1954 Leitz introduced the Summicron 7-element lens, with visibly improved imagery compared to the predecessor. It still is a low contrast lens at the wider apertures, which introduces flare and reduces the rendition of fine detail. At the medium apertures the improved colour correction brings very fine and subtly graded images which exploited the colour material of its days.Several companies were working in the same direction, notably Nikon, Voigtlander and Zeiss, which gave the Leitz lens stiff competition.

After 1964 the new Summicron for the R-body introduced a new level of optical performance, that the M-version could not match. From now on the Summicron-R defined the level of performance for a 2/50 standard lens. The 7-element lens was indeed replaced by a new M-version in 1969 that closely follows the R-design. In absolute terms the older Summicron is not as good as the newer version, but still delivers good imagery for many situations. For best results the newer version should be recommended. The older version may appeal to people who admire mechanical craftmanship, but in its optical properties it is surpassed by newer designs."

We should never describe a lens in terms of sharpness and/or resolution as these concepts are subjective to the extreme (sharpness) and in most cases irrelevant for image assessment (resolution).

Erwin

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] 6x6 slides, P11, Leica...

Jay Kumarasamy wrote:

>Yes, I like the M4. Marc, may disagree !.

Well, not completely. I've owned a number of M4's over the years, though, and all were most finicky beasts. My M3's have gone for years between CLA's, and my M6 has had one service in 14 years. Every M4 I have owned required annual CLA's, which is, of course, what they were designed to have, as a marketing ploy by Leitz. A wise idea at the time, and not terribly bad for me, as I have a trained repair guy four blocks from my place, but many are no longer so fortunate!

Marc

[email protected]

[Ed. note: see lens variations for more on individual lens variations...]

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 7 Aug 2000
From: "Erwin Puts" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Fw: Summicron upgrade

- ----- Original Message -----
From: Erwin Puts
To: L U G
Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000
Subject: Summicron upgrade

Hans Pahlen wrote in part:

"Maybe the answer is that the lens was upgraded more than once? It would be very interesting to follow up the article in Viewfinder concerning the unofficial mid 1960:s upgrade. Maybe the later production rigid and DR:s are close to the 11817 Summicron in performance?" When doing research in the Solms archives for my new lens-book (due for September/October), this question was specifically tackled. There was a rumor, that some authoritive Leica expert, who refused to state his name, had identified that the later Summicron DRs were redesigned with slightly more contrast and slightly less resolution. First of all: if it were true, why should this person want to stay anonymous?

Now for the truth: there is NO redesign of the Summicron 7 element version in whatever version. The rigid and the DR are from 1957 till 1969 absolutely identical in design and construction, glass types and whatever optical/mechanical parameter you wish to list. If there are differences in performance sample for sample, they are caused by higher tolerances in the manufacturing. One sample with a specified serial number may have a different fingerprint than another one, but is it rash, and very speculative to state that this state of affairs indicates a change in design.

There are a few facts the Leica community does not want to hear. The 7 element Summicron is a good lens, but in all respects of much lower performance than the newer ones. There are no redesigns in this version, but against all stories that "they do not make lenses as they did in the past", the older production technology did indeed allow a higher percentage of tolerancing in the manufacture. So performance differences are not redesigns, but just the bandwidth of production tolerances. Viewfinder has its own editorial policy. When my research indicated that there is a fourth version of the Summicron 90mm (an early one) and could document this version with lens diagrams and serial numbers, Viewfinder did not publish this as my research was inconclusive (they said) and went against current thinking.

But a rumor, that is unsubstantiated and brought forward by anonymous sources is published because it fits the Leica lore. Older Leica lenses are optically very good, and mechanically represent the pinacle of the classical way of designing and mounting lenses. They have a very solid feeling and they feel very good. Look below the surface and you will find a lot of manual adjustments and the level of tolerancing is way behind current lenses. In Leica Fotografie International I will publish two installments of an article about Leica lens manufacture that will substantiate this statement.

You can admire the older lenses, based on its true value and what they stand for or you can become a spindoctor, who can twist every fact to fit a belief.

Erwin

From: "Bob Flores" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000
Subject: Re: The real reason Leica is better (I hate to burst your bubble)

First of all let me preface this all by saying that I own both Nikons and a Leica.

I actually just got back from a trip to Germany and had the opportunity to visit the Leica factory in Solms outside of Wetzlar and I have a couple of comments on this topic.

The first thing that struck me was how small the Leica factory is. It is comprised of a campus style setup but is not at all a large operation. Only the M6's and R series cameras are produced at this particular locations (and their associated lenses).

Although late for the tour and having missed the "english" tour, the german tour guide invited us to join the one in progress and kindly translated all of the german into english for us even though he didn't have to. He was a very knowledgable man who had worked for the company for over 30 years and his "retirement" was giving tours of the factory.

Some facts about Leica glass:

1. The average cost for the raw material glass for use in ALL leica lenses ( projector lenses, binoculars, cameras, etc) is $2000 USD per kilogram. This is due to the proprietary mixture of rare earth elements used exclusively by Leica in their glass. Other companys also have their mixtures, and the tour guide indicated that on the believed that Nikon glass for comparable uses is costs roughly half the amount. This was not due to any lesser degree of "exoticismn" in their glass mixture, but instead, due to less stringent allowable variations on the mixture. He also indicated that Leica demands that the chemical makeup of the glass was within 0.0001% of their prescribed formulation by their supplier. And "yes" DOW corning was one of the suppliers he had mentioned, but again, we are talking about raw materials here, not lens production.

2. Each batch of glass is carefully heated to desired temperature for molding purposes over a period of several months and once the base model is formed cooled over a period of 18 months to a "room temperature" when the glass begins the initial grinding phases. This gradual cooling period prevents striations in the glass and allows for a regular crystal formation to take place in within the molecular structure of the glass (Please, no comments on glass being an amorphous solid, not a crystaline structure, I'm not here to debate the physics of the situation, just telling you what the reasoning was behind what the gentleman said). The gentleman indicated that he beleived the Leica's competitors took a significantly shorter time in their cooling process, saying that it was not largely recognized that the cooling time had a significant effect on the glass beyond a certain number of days, but that Leica felt that given the considerable quality controlls on their raw materials that to the error introduced by not completing this phase of the lens production in this manner would significantly contribute to their acceptable margin of error in the final product.

3. The lens production of each individual lens is done by hand in an assembly line fashion with very strict quality controls along each step. There is no "multi-tasking" of any of the grinders. Each is specifically trained in a certain portion of the production and each is held responsible for their batch that is passed on to the next step in production. In the pre production steps of the glass, one in ten pieces of glass is thouroghly inspected. In the final lens assembly, EACH lens is inspected, but more on that later.

4. Training for all of their grinders is intensive and extensive, and each works in an appreticeship kind of way with some of the more experienced grinders. There are grinders on their assembly lines who, through experience and time have been able to develop the skill to pick up minute defects in the glass composition and surface by touch. Each is very specialized in their production skills and their grinders have a very low attrition rate, as they are Leica's "prized" employees.

5. After grinding of the lenses are complete, EACH lens-shaped piece of glass is inspected using an interferometer to check to see if any of the grinding process has in any way created any imperfections in the glass that would cause it to not be usable in a final production lens.

6. After passing the grinding inspection portion of the production process, the coatings are applied, specific to the usage of the final product. Coatings are done in a vacume environment, again with a proprietary mixutre of elements. They are also done in particularly small batches for a number of reasons. The first of which is that it is easier to control the coating process and the distribution of the coating matierial when done in small numbers again contributing to the overall standardization of the process, but also to controll the number of lenses that, by this time are a significant investment, that have to be thrown away, should a production error occur.

7. Lense assembly, where the "glass meets the brass" is where the final stages of production occurs and is the mostly tightly controlled process. Each lens or peice of glass is hand painted on it's edge sides where required and hand fitted into it's lens housing.

8. All Leica lenses are made exclusively of Aluminum, Brass and Glass. The aluminum and brass composites are, again proprietary mixtures, designed mostly for resistance to the elements, bumps and generally designed for durability.

9. EACH and every final production lense must undergo examination by quality controll who again test the glass with an interferomito for deviation from the standard lens design. Tollerences here, according to our tour guide are exceptionally high and average .1 of what their nearest competitors allow in their production lenses.

10. Each lens is also tested for it's mechanical operation, with several machines that measure resistance on it's movement, the accuracy of it's aperature settings, etc. Several computers are setup to automatically test over a period of time a sample from each production batch to determine faluire over a period of time. In other words, there is a PC, hooked up to a machine that just rotates the aperature ring on a lense an undetermined number of times until the lense no longer has the proper resistance or the aperature readings are no longer accurate. The guide indicated that Leica strives for something on the order of "millions" of movents on a lens before the lense falls out of tolerance either in aperature settings. He did not indicate what the standard was for mechanical resistance.

11. Final production on the lenses includes a last quality inspection (mostly for cosmetics at this point). This is the only point in the production process where an abnomality would consider to be "fixable". This may include additional painting, or cleaning, but are all cosmetic. In any other part of the production process, the lense is "scrapped" if it does not meet acceptable tolerances.

12. Lenses are packed by hand and then shipped to distributors world wide.

I do not recall the actuall number of lenses that this particular factory produced but it struck me as inordinately small considering the demand for them. There are of course production sites in Portugal and Canada, both of which follow the same production models as the Solms factory. Design, by and large is done in Germany, but there have been designs from the Canadian and Portugese sites as well, but they are the exception, no the rule.

I asked about production of lenses by third parties for Leica and the response was that in those cases where lense production is contracted out, the supplier is held to the same standards as the factory would hold, and their quality is carefully monitored. The guide also indicated that what he called the "important lenses" or those that are photographer's stand-bys (ie. 35, 50, 90 mm ) were all produced by Leica and when marketing research called for a lens that was not what they considered within their production capability model, they farmed it out to other production houses with the expectation that their quality standards would be met.

All in all, I didn't see any "magic" in the Leica factory. What I did see was a dedication to producing the highest quality product possible, with very little margin for error, even if it meant that production numbers would be lower. The Leica philosphy seems to be that quality can best be controlled by very small production numbers and extremely low tollerance for error. They strive to consitently produce only the best product and beleive that they do, but demanding much higher quality and consistency standards of themselves than do their competitors. They are almost the "mom and pop shop" of camera/lense companies given their size and production numbers, but they do it very well.

The camera production department (all 30 of them) were on vacation during the time that I was there, so I can comment only very little on that, but I did get the impression that the same approach was taken in camera production. Next time I'm in Solms, I'll make sure it isn't the last week of July.

I hope I have de-mystified and objectively potrayed what I saw on the tour of the Leica factory here. With no sarcasm intended, I have only presented the facts given to me and hope that if anyone disagrees what what I've said here that it is grounded in facts and not in "heresay" or rumour. The only reason I have even posted this message is that I'm tired of the sometimes ill-mannered posts that attribute Leica owners fanatacism to something approaching witchcraft or satanism, and claims that Leica lenses are no better or worse than any other. I am not saying that they are. I'm only trying to share what I experienced with the good folks in Germany and express my feelings the the pride and individual care that each and every one of their lenses gets. It is hard to imagine the same standards or quality controll in larger production models or at lower price points.

Best Regards,
Bob

...

From Contax Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Subject: Re: [CONTAX] WTB used RTS II and 35-70 VS

I was exaggerating for effect, but your statement below is not completely true either. Leica no longer have any parts for screw mount cameras even though the IIIG came out later than the M3. I'm told that some parts for my M3 are no longer available. Some parts for older Hasselblad C lenses, likewise, are no longer available.

Bob

Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000
From: "Noah Spam" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lenses for Leica IIIf

>>Anybody know which lenses have leica thread mount/rangefinder coupling?
>>Did Zeiss make any? So far I know about Canon, Nikon and now the
>>new Voigtlander series.
>
>Yes, Zeiss did indeed make lenses in the Leica screw mount.  For instance, I
>own a near mint example of a 50mm f/1.5 Sonnar, complete with rangefinder
>coupling.

That was the East German version of the Carl Zeiss works, in Jena; they also put some of the prewar Contax lens designs in M42 (Praktica/Pentax) and Exakta mounts. The Western Zeiss, in Stuttgart, never put their Contax lenses in other mounts. But a lot of European independents did, including Steinheil, Schact, and Meyer, and you can still run across some of these occasionally at camera shows. Japanese manufacturers that got into the act included Fuji, Minolta, Olympus, and a host of no-names.

The Russians also made a lot of lenses in Leica screw thread (aka "L39" for Leica and 39mm diameter) mount for their Fed and Zorki cameras; many of these are quite good optically and can still be found today in new condition.

There are some other L39 lenses in production today; for example, the 21mm f/2.8 that Adorama sells (got a good review in 'Pop Photo' last month) is actually a screw mount that comes with its own adapter for use on M-mount cameras. There's also a 28mm from the same manufacturer. And some of the big-name Japanese manufacturers, e.g. Konica, apparently are in the habit of putting out occasional limited editions of L39 lenses for the Japanese collector market, although few make it over here to the US.

Kind of bizarre that there's still so much life in a lens mount that made its debut (in non-standardized form) in 1930 (!) on the Leica 1 Model C... and cooler yet, provided they're made properly, all these lenses from all these different eras and manufacturers can be mixed and matched freely and will work on all compatible cameras. Gee, a standardized, universal lens mount -- what a concept!

Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000
From: "David S. Berger" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lenses for Leica IIIf

MLapla4120 wrote:

> Anybody know which lenses have leica thread mount/rangefinder coupling?
> Did Zeiss make any? So far I know about Canon, Nikon and now the
> new Voigtlander series.
> Thanks

A complete list would be rather long. From the top of my head:

Leitz - Germany: Lots of old ones, couple of recent ones
Zeiss - Germany: none post-war
Nippon Kogaku (Nikon) - Japan: Full line
Canon - Japan: Full line, early ones called Serenar
Minolta (Chiyoko) - Japan: Super Rokkor, Tele Rokkor, current 28mm
Schneider - Germany: Tele Xenar, Xenogon, others
Steinheil - Germany: a bunch
Komura - Japan: a bunch
Kyoei - Japan: Acall
Tanaka Kogaku - Japan: Tanar
Olympus - Japan: rare 40mm (only one?)
Voigtl�nder - Germany: old Nokton 50/1.5 (others?)
Voigtl�nder - Japan: new Cosina stuff
FED, Industar, Jupiter - Russian: lots and lots (Zeiss designs mostly)
Arco - Japan: Tele Colinar, others?
Schacht - Germany: Travenar, Travegon, others
Ricoh - Japan: lens from GR (is this so??)
Wollensak - US: Wartime, joint with Leitz NY
Soligor - Japan:
Adorama (other names) - Japan: couple of wide angles
Sun Optical - Japan: 90mm, 135mm, others?
Angenieux - France: certainly rare
Kilfitt - Germany: viso lenses
Taylor-Hobson - UK: 50mm (rare ?)

I'm sure there are many more.

cheers,

David

David S. Berger, Ph.D.
Department of Medicine/Cardiology Section

Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lenses for Leica IIIf

I think such a list will never be complete .. on German ebay, someone sells a "Tele-Imperial" 3.5/135mm with M39 mount. There have been some tele lenses from German manufacturer ASTRO (Berlin).

There must have been M39 lenses from FOCA (France), since the early FOCA Leica-lookalikes used this mount. BTW, does anyone know anything about the FOCA Leica copies? I have seen some in France, but obviously they are almost unknown in other countries.

There was also a Czech Leica imitation but I do not know whether it had interchangeable lenses.

The Kilfitt lenses (or lens heads) will not focus exactly on a Leitz Visoflex. They are designed for the Kilfitt mirror reflex adapter (if you see one: they only work with a very special cable release I've seen only once in my life) that looks quite similar to early Viso's. But the tube length is different, so you will need a thin adapter ring to mount the Kilfitts to a Visoflex.

Some of the Russian lenses with M39 thread are designed for some of their older SLR models and do not have rangefinder coupling.

www.cameraquest.com gives a general (but not complete) overview of M39 (LTM) lenses.

Winfried from Germany.

From Rangefinder Mailing list:
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000
From: Benno Jones [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Russian RF

I have several, a Kiev 4-AM, a Zorki 1d, a Mir, a Fed-5, and a Fed-5b. The late model Feds are not very good aside from the lens. The Kiev is very good, I have almost the complete lens set for it (lacking only the very rare Orion 28mm). The Zorki is also good as is the Mir. I am told by a few Russian camera experts that the Mir is better than the Zorki-5 on which it is based as it does not have the slow speeds, which are troublesome on the Zorkis 4-6.

A problem with Russian LTM cameras is that they do not work with all LTM lenses. I bought a Canon Serenar 135mm lens to use with my camera and the shape of the rf cam in the cameras does not link up well with the cam in the lens. The lens will not screw in all the way. I am told by others that this is common, especially with Japanese lenses on Russian bodies. Others have told me of problems with lenses mounting on both LTM and Kiev mount cameras due to the notorious low QC on Russian gear.

Benno Jones

...

From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2000
From: "Richard Coutant" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Russian RF

The older Kievs, up to about 1956 or so, seem better-built than the later ones. Some of the later Kievs have lens mounts that are, to put it charitably, wobbly. The older ones are really indistinguishable from the prewar Contax(no surprise). I have used thse cameras quite a bit over the last couple of years, and find them totally reliable. I'm just starting to use a Fed 2, which seems like a well-built camera, but I don't have enough experience with it to say for sure. My 'good' Kiev is a 1955 model without meter, with a collapsible f2 Zeiss Sonnar. I have a Contax II, Leica IIIc, Contessa, Retina IIc, Karat 36, Vitessa, and Prominent, and the Kiev is the equal, in practical use, of any of them.

Richard H. Coutant

From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 22-Oct-2000
From: Jon Ladd [email protected]
Subject: RE: Russian RF

I have a couple of Zorki-4 bodies and they will not mount a couple of lenses I have. The Voigtlander 15mm is one, it doesn't seat in to the body completely (not that I would use it on there but it would be a nice option). Haven't tried my other Voigtlander lenses. My Nikon 135mm MIOJ lens doesn't either since the Zorki body doesn't use a round bearing for the RF coupling but instead has a steel slide. The Nikon couples through a protrution in the back (instead of a continuos flat surface) of the lens and it colides into the slide while screwing it on. A bearing would roll over the coupler. It can be mounted if the camera is empty of film, shutter on "B", and finger holding the RF coupling slide back (through the back) as the lens is screwed on. Not to versatile though.

I am unimpressed also with the Industar 50 lens. Have two, they are not very sharp.

My Zorki's are not the most consistant in the shutter speed department either. I've had the RF sections off them and they are easy to clean and adjust though. I am thinking of picking up a Fed 1f and would love comments. Glutton for punishment.

Thanks,
Jon Ladd

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000
From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] What is in a name (Shakespeare)

Johnny Deadman wrote:

>[Snip]

Some real extremes here!

One hand we have Johnny saying "a soft halo of beauty..." and on the other hand a reference to Hamiltonian vaselined UV filters.

I do like Erwin have some trouble with this seemingly worshipful view towards the defects of a lens.

Johnny: "A picture where the flare/halo/coma/whatever is absolutely integral to the way it..."

I believe the use of old glass is simply a more sophisticated way of getting what Hamilton got. Fuzzy wuzzy's! (as Ansel would say) Instead of sticking flagellated filters on the front of our glass we are just using glass with wonderful crudities of design built right it! I've got mixed feelings about it.

mark rabiner

Date: Sun, 05 Nov 2000
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Rangefinder Lenses vs SLR Lenses

LZ [email protected] wrote:

>   The main reason is that rangefinder lenses do not
>   need to clear the flapping mirror. Therefore, the
>   rear-most element of the lens can be designed to
>   sit as close to the film plane as the computed
>   lens formula dictate. This often results in visibly
>   better image quality.

Many of the current Leica lenses use retrofocus designs so that the lens will clear the meter. They are "less retrofocus" than the corresponding SLR lenses, but they're no longer the "classic" designs.

Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000
From: Charles F Seyferlich [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Minolta CLE or Voigtlander Bessa R???

greg kerr wrote:

> Until recently I was building up my F90x kit. I decided to find out what
> this rangefinder cult was all about and picked up a Konica S2, Minolta
> Hi-matic 7S and Canonet GIII Q17. I'm now bitten by the bug and am
> considering looking at an entry level rangefinder with interchangeable
> lenses. I've written off anything with Leica on it as being too
> expensive, except possibly a decently priced CL. I have decided against
> the Konica Hexar RF or Contax G2, although a used  less expensive G1
> could be a possibility.
>
> From my research so far I seem to like the Voightlander Bessa R and
> older Minolta CLE as seeming to offer the most bang for the buck. At
> this time I haven't actually had a chance to hold either of these
> cameras in my hand but I would still be very interested in any opinions
> with those familiar with these two rangefinders. Any other suggestions
> that I've missed? Thanks in advance.

I owned a couple of CLE's a number of years ago & have never owned a Bessa R.

The CLE has Leica M (bayonet) mount & Bessa is Leica screw mount so more lenses can fit CLE (not all M mount will fit CLE - I seem to remember the DR Summicron did not).

As I recall the CLE works best as aperture priority automatic as there is no easy way to meter manually with built in meter. I understand the Bessa is a match needle (diode) camera.

I used a Canon 19mm lens on a CLE with good results. Two adapters were required - Canon FL/FD to Leica screw and a Leica screw to Leica M. I also used a Nikkor 105mm f2.5 with the last mentioned adapter.

The CLE also has automatic TTL flash with its dedicated flash (and I think also with dedicated flashes for Minolta X series cameras).

I think the metering system in the CLE is better regarded that the one in the CL. The CL was a swinging type (mounted in mirrior I think) while the CLE was fixed in bottom, reading off shutter curtain.

Date: 9 Nov 2000
From: "G" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Minolta CLE or Voigtlander Bessa R???

Though I have not used the Bessa R, I have used the CLE. It's a great camera - small, light, and the three lenses which were specifically built for it are all pretty fine. It handles nicely, and the metering is good (though the meter only works in AE mode, not in full manual). The problem is that this camera is now at least 20 years old. Parts are extremely difficult to come by and there are very few technicians around who have the experience required to do a good job on these cameras. As far as I know, the camera is no longer supported by Minolta, and if something as simple as the on-off switch breaks (a lightweight plastic switch which should have been designed for much heavier use), you could be left with an expensive ornament.

It really is now a camera for collectors who might use it occasionally, rather than a camera which you would want to constantly use in the field. Go for the Bessa R, or better still, keep saving for a good used M6 which in 20 years time will still be supported by Leica (and importantly, will probably be worth not much less than what you might pay for it today). One other thing - after using funky 1970s rangefinders, you might be a bit dissapointed with the G1. It is an excellent camera, but being an autofocus (with a fake 'manual focus' override) doesn't really offer the classic rangfinder experience which I suspect you are after.

Regards,

G.J Toth

...

Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2000
From: Tony Polson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Minolta CLE or Voigtlander Bessa R???

> ornament. It really is  now a camera for collectors who might use it
> occasionally, rather than a camera which you would want to constantly use
> in the field.

This is very good advice. I owned a Leica CL in the early/mid 1990s and it was plagued with niggling problems.

One of the worst weaknesses of the CL and CLE lenses (wherever they were made) is their susceptibility to fungus. Worse, the balsam used to cement together the lens elements has very little resistance to fungal attack.

Once the dreaded fungus strikes your lens needs expensive repair. The balsam has to be dissolved out from between the lens elements, the elements thoroughly cleaned and refixed together with new balsam.

I had a quote for doing this work on my 90mm f/4 Elmar-C from Leitz in Germany; it was the equivalent of US $800. I had it done at a third of the cost by a very old man who has worked with high quality lenses all his life, but I had to dismantle and reassemble the lens myself. He did a fine job. So did I, eventually.

Of all the CL/CLE range the lens that was *by far* the most susceptible to fungal attack of the balsam was the 28mm f/2.8. This lens was only ever sold under the Minolta brand. Only the CLE had a viewfinder frame for the 28mm focal length; the Leica CL had only 40 and 90mm frames.

Hope this helps.

--
Tony Polson, North Yorkshire, UK

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Mark Bergman" [email protected]
[1] Re: Crummy Leicas
Date: Wed Dec 06 2000

Early Leica R4's below a serial number of about 1200000 had very unreliable electronics. Above that Leica changed suppliers and they are very good cameras. Because of the bad ugly reputation of the early ones you can get a very nice camera dirt cheap. I routinely see these in mint condition for less than $300. Otherwise the camera's are built like tanks.

"eromney" [email protected] wrote

> Leica R4 SLR is impossibly unreliable.

Date: Thu, 7 Dec 2000
From: "Fred Whitlock" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Crummy Leicas

> Leica R4 SLR is impossibly unreliable. The original Leicaflex with
> outside meter was obsolete the day it was built, is reliable however.
> Leica 8mm movie is weak.

I sold my Leica R's a couple of years ago. They made nice photos but weren't anything special. At least there wasn't anything there my other SLR's wouldn't do. I did like the R6. It was quiet and smooth. I never had a mechanical failure with my R4 but that's just a universe of one.

> A customer of mine in the repair trade had an
> awful time repairing a light leak in an M6 Leica. Turned out to be a
> pinhole flaw in the casting, can you believe it??

Sure, quality control isn't 100% anywhere. I'm willing to bet it's a rare occurence, though. Very rare.

>Leica CL is called the 
> "crummy Leica" by the knowing, because its tiny RF is about useless.

Be fair. It was a camera Leica subcontracted in Japan to provide a cheaper platform that could use Leica optics. It wasn't a smashing success. It also wasn't really a Leica.

> M5 works OK but is very clumsy.

The M5 is a little larger than the other M's but, as you say, it works well. I used one for a couple of years until a collector just had to have it for more than I had paid for it. I was happy to move on the M6 at that point. It gave me the TTL metering in the M4 sized package. I still use a pair of M6's and I still have an M4P that I use occasionally. All of them function flawlessly and always have. They are a pleasure to use.

>        Many of the earlier Leitz lenses were crummy for their time. 50mm
> F2Summar does not equal Zeiss Sonnar or Retina Xenon. Summarit F1.5 is
> soft compared to F1.4 Nikon.

I'd say most all the earlier ones were poor. They got really good really fast, though, and by the late 1930's they competed with anyone at most focal lengths. People still talk about the superiority of the Zeiss lenses even though they and Leica were comparable after the mid 30's. I still use a 30's vintage 50 Elmar from time to time and it makes spectacular chromes. The Summarit wasn't one of Leica's best, to be sure. I own one and I can back you up on that one. The Summicron was (and is) pretty outstanding in anybody's book, though. I wish I had a screw mount Summicron. My M series 50 Summicron is about as good as 50's get. At least I can't think of a better one I've used. The Leica wide angles, of course, are legendary and, since they need no retrofocus in the design, outperform any and all comparable SLR wide angles. I've had seasoned pro photographers gasp when they saw chromes shot with any of the Leica 35mm lenses. They've said they couldn't duplicate those chromes with an SLR and they're right. They can make wonderful ones to be sure with an SLR but not quite up to what the rangefinder wide angles can do.

> 1950's Nikon and Canon RF lenses are
> usually better than Leitz of the same period. .

No. A few perhaps but not "usually better." Some of the Nikkor's are very good from the era. My Nikkor 105 is the equal of the 90's from Leica of the era (but not the current ones.) The only wide angle I have for the S system is a 35mm and it has more barrel distortion than my 40's vintage Summaron. Nor is it any sharper. The 50's are contrastier but not sharper than the Summicron. I have a fairly nice Nikon S system and I rarely use it. It's kind of a collector camera, I guess. I love it dearly. I use the screwmount Leicas much more often. I'm not sure what that says. I guess it says this photographer likes the Leicas better, at least for making photographs. I use modern Nikons almost exclusively for pro 35mm work so I'm obviously not against Nikon. I'm actually a strong supporter of the Nikon system and I've been using it since 1966.

The current Leica 90's for the M6 are better than any Nikkor short telephoto I've used and I think I've used them all. The one Nikkor telephoto that competes with them is the 180 f2.8. Pretty spectacular when you consider a lens at twice the focal length plays right along with some of the best short teles in history. There was time when Nikon owned the short tele business with the 85 and 105 manual lenses for the F system. I don't think that's true today. While the new Nikkor 85 and 105 micro are excellent lenses they aren't quite in the same league with the Leica 90's. Nor are they any better than comparable short teles from companies like Canon and Contax. I use my current Nikkor 85 more often than I do any Leica lens but I'll admit that it's a little inferior to the Leica 90's.

Actually I have almost no experience with the Canon RF lenses. I've had a couple of Canon bodies that I used with Leitz lenses but never the reverse. I used one for quite a while until I got into M series Leicas because the view/rangefinders were way better than those on the screwmount Leicas. Oh, I did have a Canon 50 with one of them and I thought it was inferior to the Leica 50's, even the Summarit. Could have been a bad sample. I never used it after the test roll. I sold it along with one of the Canon bodies when I got into the Leica M's. Obviously don't miss either the lens or the bodies.

> Elmar 35mm leaves a lot
> to be desired. But ,with a very few exceptions, Leicas are remarkably
> fine.

So now they're OK, huh?

> These days a camera that gives trouble usually has been wrongly
> repaired. Many of the finer lenses such  as Summicrons have been
> disassembled and repolished and are no longer good. I prefer Russian
> lenses for the screwmount Leica.

Hopefully, you're kidding. It may be what you have or use, but I doubt it's what you prefer. I'll admit that the only Russian lenses for screwmount I've used were from the 70's. Perhaps they got better. But in the 70's they couldn't compete with Leica lenses. I may still have a 70's vintgage 50 Jupiter laying around in one my boxes of old equipment. I may dust it off and do a test roll. I'll bet it won't even play with the Summarit.

>        The IIIA shutter travels slower than the curtain in the later
> cameras, lasts longer. I prefer this camera to IIIf, IIIg or M series.

The IIIA had a poor view/rangefinder. It was accurate and reliable for sure but not pleasant to use. My favorite screwmount Leica is a IIIC that was converted to IIIf. It is outstanding in every respect. I do admit that I had the shutter rebuilt in it and some viewfinder parts replaced to brighten it up. It runs like new and has for many years. My IIIa is in second place. Nice camera but I really don't like the viewfinder. Give me a Leica M anytime to either of them.

> A
> Splendid camera, will last a lifetime. I sell every IIIg   I   get.

Sure. Strong collector value. I sold mine too. Couldn't resist the profit.

> We
> were all sorry when the M3  camera came out in the 1950's. We felt it
> was a step backward from the screw mount.

Who's we? I think the M series was a meaningful step forward. Great view/rangefinders and quick lens interchangeability. Sure I still use my old screwmount Leicas but mostly to amuse myself and keep them running properly. I use Leica M's as travel cameras and actually shoot some stock with them. I've never taken a Leica screwmount on a "critical mission" - at least not for many, many years. I don't usually take Leica M's for "critical missions" either but that's a function of time, cost, profits and versatility and not because the M's won't make great photographs. As we all know, they will.

> We felt the same way  when
> Ford replaced the classic Thunderbird with a four passenger car. Now the
> reverse opinion is in vogue. Best wishes... Ed Romney
> http://www.edromney.com

I agree with you about the Thunderbird. I learned to drive in my Father's 55 bird. My friends were jealous of me. The memories can still bring back smiles. Good shooting.

Fred
Maplewood Photography

From: [email protected] (Heavysteam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 13 Dec 2000
Subject: Re: Leica vs Medium Format??

My suggestion will be a little different from others you've received. I'd recommend Leica but some of the older lenses like the 50mm dual range Summicron and 35mm Summilux. I'd stick with a good used M4 series or the earlier M6 in basic black. The M4-P is the most available at a good price, and is essentially an M6 with no meter. (I use mine with a Leica clip-on meter or a hand meter.) Since you photograph in some difficult locations, a small, discrete and quiet camera should be a big plus. (Battery-free, too, if you go with an M4.) One of the best things about using the older lenses are the beautiful qualities and the distinct "Leica look" of the bokeh. Please don't develop a sharpness fetish that overrules common sense. You don't seem to be shooting stock for bored art directeors-- a small camera, fast lens and pushed film will give you a classic look that screams "great street photographer."

From RussianCamera Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000
From: Kevin Kalsbeek [email protected]
Subject: Re: Researching Jupitar-8

Franka, I have to agree with you. The very early Z.K. Lenses are likely to be actual Zeiss Sonnar glass in Russian mounts, but the later lenses were slightly modified Sonnars, but they are still Sonnar derivatives. The FED 50mms are Elmar derivatives and some of the Industars are Tessar derivatives. This aside, there is VERY little that is truly new in lens design- most are derivatives of earlier lenses- one way or another.

Kevin

...

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: "Mark Bergman" [email protected]
[1] Re: Why Leica?
Date: Sat Dec 30 2000

IMHO the built in meter of the M6 is the clumsiest meter I have ever used. I got rid of my M6 and went back to using my M4. Actually I traded the M6 even up for a new Konica Hexar and if you have rapidly changing lighting conditions you may want to look at the Konica with Leitz glass.

...

From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000
From: Harold E Owen [email protected]
Subject: Re[2]: Rassvet?

"Per Backman" [email protected] wrote:

> Thanks!
>
> It is the first info I got about this camera.
>
> Hove is British, is it not? Do you know about any UK source for the book?
>
> Per B.

Hello Per,

I recently purchased the book in question from Bernard Hunter Photobooks who are situated in Bristol here in the U.K.

It was my understanding he had a number of copies.

The full contact details are:-

Bernard Hunter Photobooks
246, North Street,
Ashton,
Bristol.
United Kingdom.
BS3 1JD
Telephone:- 0117 966 6066
Fax:- 0117 966 3139

His mail order service is pretty quick and most credit cards are welcomed, if calling from outside the U.K. you will have to include the U.K. dialling code.

For your info I have just this minute phoned the shop and they have one copy of "The Authentic Guide to Russian and Soviet Cameras - Made in the USSR" by Jean Loup Princelle" on display on their shelves with possibly others in stock. They have no problems obtaining copies of this book.

Cheers - Harry

Harry-O

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000
From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why Leica? (Differences?...)

"max_perl" [email protected] wrote:

>Hmmm....I got the AFD 24/2.8 and I don't see this trace of softness. I
>thought the
>AFD was the same lens design as ths AIS lens.......but probably there is a
>difference.
>I have never tried the 24/2.0 but have heard of similar problems. In the
>Nikon world
>the 24/2.8 is known as a good lens.......however in against the light
>situations you
>get ghosting....e.g. if you take pictures directly into the sun. This is not
>the case with
>the AIS 28/2.0 which I think is a much better lens.

Yes, I've heard that the 28/2.0 AIS is a good lens. I've used the 28/2.8 AIS, and if the 2.0 version keeps that level of performance, then it's darned fine. I must say that the 28 Elmarit-M is better, though - in terms of colour gradation and shadow detail especially.

There's a tonal subtlety to images from some of the Leica M lenses that I haven't seen in any of the Nikkors I've owned except for the 180/2.8 AF. Leica lenses that stand out in this regard are the 24 and 28 Elmarits, the 35 Summicron ASPH, the 50 Summicron, the 75 Summilux, maybe the current 90/2.8 Elmarit and the 135 APO-Telyt. The new 90 APO ASPH Is very sharp and contrasty, but hasn't yet impressed me with its subtlety. The same can be said of the 35 Summilux ASPH.

Nikkors that I've had that I found wanting in one or more respects were the 24's, a 20/2.8 AF, a 28/2.8 AI, a whole raft of 35/2.0's (never tried a 1.4, though), the 85/2.0, the 85/1.8 AF (sharp, but I hated the feel), a 135/3.5 and a 200/4.0 AIS.

Nikkors I've liked have been the 28/2.8 AIS, the 55/2.8 Micro (the bokeh sucks, though), a 50/2.0 H.C, a 105/2.5 P.C (except close up) and the 180 AF (with no reservations). On the whole, though, I've never felt that any of them measured up to the Leica M glass I mentioned above, with the exception of the 180.

Overall, I think Nikon's wide angle glass is pretty poor, while Leica's is at the very top of the heap. When you're talking wide angle primes, this whole apologia of "Nikon's best lenses are the equal of anything Leica makes" is just whistling past the graveyard. IMNSHO :-)

Paul Chefurka

From Russiancamera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: filters and hoods for the Moscow 5

Bill Brady wrote:

>The Moskva 5 uses a push on filter, about series VI.

The Moscow 5 takes a 32mm push-on filter. A 32mm to Series VI filter adapter and hood can be had from Harrison and Harrison for around $25 or so.

Marc

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000
From: "Fred Whitlock" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why Leica?

It's hard to understand the vitriol this subject brings up on the newsgroup. The Leica M is a completely hand made mechanical camera. It is assembled something like a large mechanical watch is assembled. This is really expensive because it involves so much human labor. I'm not saying that's good. I'm saying it's expensive. If someone doesn't want a hand made mechanical camera, then this isn't what one should buy. If one does, then that's the price one has to pay. It's ludicrous to suggest that buying one is ludicrous. Everyone has different tastes, desires, needs, applications. It's even ludicrous to suggest that it's over-priced. I don't think it is. I think it's a tool made in a manner that's very expensive. It can't be made by a robot stuffing circuit boards. If it could, then it would be less expensive. The Contax rangefinder, as an example, is less expensive. It isn't a mechanical camera. It has IC's in it and a quartz controlled electronic shutter. It has it's strengths and weaknesses but it isn't the same thing as a Leica. It may be a better choice for someone but that doesn't obviate the fact that the Leica M may be a better choice for someone else. Obviously the same is true of any SLR as well.

Are Leica lenses superior to other lenses? Sometimes and sometimes not. Every Leica wide angle lens will outperform every SLR wide angle lens of similar focal length because it doesn't suffer from the required design elements of retro focus (an SLR wide angle is something like a reversed telephoto so that the rear element can stay out of the way of the mirror.) This isn't a guess. It's a fact. It isn't subject to debate with me. You can debate it if you want. I already know better. Could the optical designers at Nikon and Canon make wide angles just as good as a Leica if they were designing for interchangeable lens rangefinders? I'm sure they could. Will the wide angles on a Contax rangefinder outperform any similar SLR wide angle? You bet and this isn't subject to debate with me either. The normals and short teles from Leica are also outstanding. Are they the best? Sometimes. They are always at least among the best and are certainly of very high quality and performance. They are consistently good. You can buy any Leica lens and be assured that your equipment won't get in the way of making a high quality image. Are they worth the asking price? Who knows? That's a personal decision and one should not impose one's personal preferences on someone else nor should someone criticize someone else for making a personal decision.

I have no problem with debating the pluses and minuses of photographic equipment on this forum. It's one of the basic purposes of the forums. If someone wants to say that a Leica M is not the best choice for macro photography or long telephoto photography or flash photography, I would concur and be happy to join in the debate. If one wants to suggest that nobody on the planet makes a better lens of 35mm focal length for a 35mm camera than Leica, I will also concur and join in the debate. But when we start making personal attacks on people because they chose a Leica for whatever reason, it goes out of bounds and doesn't belong here or on any forum. It reflects badly on the criticizer and not on the critisizee (that isn't a word is it?) Chill. Go make some photographs. Avoid buying a Leica if that's your prerence. I'll never criticize you for making that choice. Tell me the Leica isn't worth the asking price to you. I'll respect that. Let those who have chosen to own and use Leicas have some respect as well. Good shooting.

--
Fred
Maplewood Photography

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000
From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why Leica? (Differences?...)

[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote:

>Hi Paul,
>
>I guess I don't find it surprising that a M series non-retrofocus wide
>angle lens, with fewer optical design constraints, would equal or
>outperform an SLR lens using more elements (higher flare, lower contrast)
>in a retrofocus design.

Actually, I believe most of the new Leica M wides are retrofocus designs. Certainly the 24, the new 28/2.0 and both 35's are.

As to lens elements, I checked and found the following (go to fixed-pitch font for the table):

        Lens             Elements   Groups
---------------------------------------------
21/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH       9         7
20/2.8 Nikkor              12         9
24/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH       7         5
24/2.8 Nikkor               9         9
28/2.8 Elmarit-M            8         7
28/2.8 Nikkor AIS           8         8
28/2.0 Summicron-M ASPH     9         6
28/2.0 Nikkor AIS           9         8
35/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH      9         5
35/1.4 Nikkor               9         7
35/2.0 Summicron-M ASPH     7         5
35/2.0 Nikkor               6         5

Interestingly, the only Leica lenses that uses fewer elements than their Nikkor counterpart are the 21 and the 24. However in many cases the Leica lenses use fewer groups, which I assume means fewer air-glass interfaces. Also most of the Leica lenses incorporate aspheric elements, and according to Erwin Puts each aspheric element can be considered to replace two spherical ones as a rule of thumb. And to quote from his review of the 28/2.0 Summicron, "More lens elements can potentially improve performance, as more parameters can be controlled." If you can achieve the effect of more elements through the use of fewer aspherics, you should reap a benefit in terms of contrast among other things.

>While you may feel that the nikkor wide angles are rather poor, nikon's
>wide angles have historically been among the leaders in 35mm SLR wide
>angle lenses, at least prior to the rise of autofocus, with lots of
>optical firsts among SLR lens designs on wide angles to their credit.

I agree that Nikkor wides have been seminal designs. Their 35/2.0 and the 24/2.8 with its floating elements were revolutionary at the time of their introduction.

On the other hand, they have done very little R&D on wide angle primes over the last 15 years. The current 20/2.8 was introduced in 1985, the 24/2.8 dates from 1967, the 24/2.0 from 1978, the 35/1.4 from 1970, the 35/2.0 from 1965 (albeit with a couple of upgrades), the 28/2.0 from 1971 and the 28/2.8 AIS from 1982.

In fact, the last time most of their wides could have been reworked was in 1982 when the AIS redesigns took place. The only new wide angle formulae that were introduced after that date were the 20/2.8 and of course the AF 28's (which were hardly upgrades). The remainder of the reworks after 1982 appear to have been the fitting of AF barrels.

In contrast, Leica's current M wide angle lenses were introduced as follows:

21/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH   - 1997
24/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH   - 1998
28/2.8 Elmarit-M        - 1993
28/2.0 Summicron-M ASPH - 2000
35/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH  - 1995
35/2.0 Summicron-M ASPH - 1997

So, while the Nikkor designs were revolutionary when they were introduced, they have not been kept up to date, and have been decisively surpassed in all respects (including price) by Leica's current M lenses.

>a more interesting question is how well the new and much cheaper Cosina
>and other lenses are being received, and how well they perform versus the
>more pricey Leitz/Leica originals, in an apples to apples comparison.

Indeed. Cosina's new 28/1.9, the 35/1.7 Ultron, the 35/2.5, the 50/1.5 Nokton, the 25, the 15, the 12mm, the 75/2.5 and Konica's new 28, 50 and 90 have really put the cat among the pigeons. It sure in nice to see such a renaissance in rangefinder cameras and lenses.

>In the meantime, on my budget, I'm pretty happy to follow the 90/10
>rule; getting 90% of the quality for 10% of the cost ;-) ;-) grins bobm

And I OTOH am amazed that we can buy such state of the art devices as the current Leica lenses for such a pittance (when you consider what state-of-the-art costs in most other technological fields).

Paul Chefurka

Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000
From: "max_perl" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why Leica? (Differences?...)

....

> >While you may feel that the nikkor wide angles are rather poor, nikon's
> >wide angles have historically been among the leaders in 35mm SLR wide
> >angle lenses, at least prior to the rise of autofocus, with lots of
> >optical firsts among SLR lens designs on wide angles to their credit.
>
> I agree that Nikkor wides have been seminal designs.  Their 35/2.0 and the
> 24/2.8 with its floating elements were revolutionary at the time of their
> introduction.
>
> On the other hand, they have done very little R&D on wide angle primes over the
> last 15 years.  The current 20/2.8 was introduced in 1985, the 24/2.8 dates from
> 1967, the 24/2.0 from 1978, the 35/1.4 from 1970, the 35/2.0 from 1965 (albeit
> with a couple of upgrades), the 28/2.0 from 1971 and the 28/2.8 AIS from 1982.
>
> In fact, the last time most of their wides could have been reworked was in 1982
> when the AIS redesigns took place.  The only new wide angle formulae that were
> introduced after that date were the 20/2.8 and of course the AF 28's (which were
> hardly upgrades).  The remainder of the reworks after 1982 appear to have been
> the fitting of AF barrels.

The AFD 18/2.8 is a relative new design (ASPH), and the AFD 14/2.8 is a very new design. But the 18/2.8 proves that new design not always are better then older designs. The 20/2.8 is much better and with one more lens element than the 18/2.8. The AIS 15/3.5 is old but still very good if you can keep distubing light from the sides away.

This lens have 14 elements as far as I remember. Zeiss and Leica has a similar lens with same number of elements. If you do a lens design right the first time you don't need to upgrade it every year..... Many large format photographer use lenses from the start of last century. Some of them only have two lens elements but the result is exelent.......

> In contrast, Leica's current M wide angle lenses were introduced as follows:
>
> 21/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH   - 1997
> 24/2.8 Elmarit-M ASPH   - 1998
> 28/2.8 Elmarit-M        - 1993
> 28/2.0 Summicron-M ASPH - 2000
> 35/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH  - 1995
> 35/2.0 Summicron-M ASPH - 1997
>
> So, while the Nikkor designs were revolutionary when they were introduced, they
> have not been kept up to date, and have been decisively surpassed in all
> respects (including price) by Leica's current M lenses.
>
> >a more interesting question is how well the new and much cheaper Cosina
> >and other lenses are being received, and how well they perform versus the
> >more pricey Leitz/Leica originals, in an apples to apples comparison.
>
> Indeed.  Cosina's new 28/1.9, the 35/1.7 Ultron, the 35/2.5, the 50/1.5 Nokton,
> the 25, the 15, the 12mm, the 75/2.5 and Konica's new 28, 50 and 90 have really
> put the cat among the pigeons.  It sure in nice to see such a renaissance in 
> rangefinder cameras and lenses.
>
> >In the meantime, on my budget, I'm pretty happy to follow the 90/10
> >rule; getting 90% of the quality for 10% of the cost ;-) ;-) grins bobm
>
> And I OTOH am amazed that we can buy such state of the art devices as the
> current Leica lenses for such a pittance (when you consider what
> state-of-the-art costs in most other technological fields).
>
> Paul Chefurka

Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000
From: Raymond Copley [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Bessa

Hullo Robert. Thanks for your swift reply. Congratulations on your site, it's a beauty which I have started to devour with an appetite. The review of the Bessa-R is the best I have read for a long time. Adeal Pty. Ltd., the Australian agents for Leica and Cosina, said they had been unable to get any backup information from Cosina and simply left me with a body, 3 lenses and the basic instruction manual - thin pickings for a review!

Here is something which you might like to pickup and amplify. Adeal's chief, Brian D'arcy, recently back from Photokina, said he had been told by the head of Leica optics that Leica lenses made 20 years ago were still ahead of the reproductive capabilities of current films and enlarging papers. On my estimation, it will be about 50 years before photographic materials catchup with the lenses NOW being made by Leica! In view of this disparity, it might make economic sense for Leica to slowdown on the costly research and development of new optics which cannot be fully exploited by users and with the savings cut prices which in turn would expand the market for their wonderful goodies. I recently made comparitive photographs using my 50mm F2 Sumicron made in 1955 and the latest version and couldn't detect any difference.

Another morsel from Brian which might provide interest for your viewers. Leica lenses manufactured in Canada are being sought after because of their exceptional optical quality. I have the Canadian 90mm F2 Sumicron and 135mm F2.8 Elmarit puchased in 1978 and they are positively superb.

Thank you again for the site addresses; I'll be making very regular visits. Happy New Year. Raymond Copley, Melbourne. [email protected]

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Does Leica Portugal offer tours of its factory?

I don't know the status today, but when I visited Solms a few years ago the M6 cameras were made in Portugal. Only final assembly (mostly fitting of the top cover) and calibration was done in Germany. They did just enough of the work in Germany so they could legally put "Made in Germany" on the cameras. They did this because labor was much cheaper in Portugal. I don't know if this is still the case, but my guess would be that this hasn't changed. They probably make some of the subassemblies for the R8 there as well.

Bob

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000
From: Bill Barton [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: Zorki repair person

Peter,

This guy is in NJ but does good work and the cost is not bad, however like all good repair people he is backed up. He repaied one Kiev 4 for me earlier this year that just needed a CLA and it cost 60.00 I picked up another one that needed a major shutter repair and the set screw for the self timer was broken off and this one I just got the estimate for 100.00... So I guess that would be about the same price range for the Zorki.....

His name is Leonid Treskunov
e-mail address is "[email protected]"
Phone # (732) 679-5805

Drop him a line and he will send you his mailing address

From Russian Camera Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001
From: "Jay Y Javier" [email protected]
Subject: Look-a-Leicas!!!

Hullo there!

I'm very curious. Saw some "Leicas" which looked more like Zorkij or Fed.Zorkij/Fed are Leica copies and are marked as such. But the ones I saw were LABELLED "Leica"!

They came in different versions, from the basic black II-style (from which the Z and the F were copied), to garish gold-and-reptile skin types. One even had WWII German army markings! And to top it all, a Zorki C was marked as a Leica as well, inspite of the fact that the leica was never produced in that style.

What gave away these cameras' less nobler heritage were the fittings found on these so-called Leicas are typically found on the Fed/Zorkij- such as the threaded shutter release button; the exposed black metal areas around the lens mount (vey Zorkij!); and the sloped (as opposed to Leica's roller) rangefinder cam. All came complete with an Industar masquerading as an Elmar (the one found on the supposed model II was coated!).

Question is, how did these cameras come to be? Does anyone know the story about these look-a-leicas? Were these produced in the factories alongside the real Fed/Zorkij cameras? Were they intended to be passed off as real leicas? Or is there someone going around collecting Fed 1 or Zorkij 1 cameras for the purpose of refurbishing them and re-issuing them as Leicas?

Thanks

Jay [email protected]

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001
From: "Sal DiMarco,Jr." [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: Fish-Eye for M- Camera

Luggers

For those of you out there who really want a fish-eye on your M-camera, I suggest you do what I did......

Get a 7.5mm f.5.6 Fish-Eye Nikkor and send it to Professional Camera Repair Service in New York City so they can make a Nikon 'F' to Leica 'M' adapter ring.

The other choice is the older 8mm f/8 Fish-Eye Nikkor.

Neither lens will meter with an M6 since the rear element is either lens is only a couple of millimeters away from the film plane.

The lenses are very hard to find, and expensive, but the adapter ring shouldn't cost more than $75.00US...

Happy Snaps,

Sal DiMarco,Jr.
Philadelphia, PA

[Ed. note: not an endorsement but for your info about prices and sources..]
From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001
From: Dale L Dickerson [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] russian rangefinders

Mike,

I suggest you contact Vikentiy Trofimov at [email protected] or visit his web page www.sovietcamera.com.ua He is in Kiev, Ukraine and should be able to help you out. His prices are very low, but the cameras are working and good condition.

I bought a Kiev 2a from him for $45 including postage! It is in very good condition. Amazing deal.

Best Regards,

Dale

mike p [email protected] writes:

> new to rangefinders, but a veteran photog. I am interested in some of
>
> the Leica fakes. The Zorki c to be exact. any thoughts? probably can
> get
> for about $60.00.
>
> thanks
> Mike

[Ed. note: another source and info, again not an endorsement but info...]
From Russian Camera Mailing List
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2001
From: "Charles Dias" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] russian rangefinders

Hi Mike,

I�m a russian camera collector and I guess I can help you ... The Zorki C is an excellent camera ... it�s just like the Leica IIIf ... I have one and like it too much ... light, compact, realible and have cleaning lens ... it�s a good choice.

Another good choices is the FED3b and the Kiev 4a.

Almost all my cameras I bought from Maxim Martynov ... he�s a camera dealer living in Moscow ... excellent person, excellent equipment ... you can trust on him ... you can contact him in the mail [email protected] ... please, say Charles Dias give you his mail.

If you have any other question, please mail me.

Yours,

Charles

Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2001
From: David Kieltyka [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica Conversion?

[email protected] wrote:

> David Kieltyka [email protected] wrote:
>
>> The Bessa-R's rangefinder baselength is quite short,
>> though...it works best with wide-angle lenses.
>
> It seems Cosina have already realised this, as the *only*
> telephoto lens they offer is the 75mm.
>
> I have been using one of these lenses (in Nikon AIS fit) for
> several weeks. It's a very good but not particularly remarkable
> lens. I much prefer my Nikon 85mm f/1.8 AF which consistently
> delivers great images, within the limits of my ability.

Evidently Cosina is about to come out with a 90mm Voigtl�nder lens. Maximum aperture is (I think) f/3.5, which should make the 90mm focal length feasible with the Bessa-R as long as you don't expect consistently sharp results wide open at close focus.

I have an old 85mm f/2 Nikkor, the lens that put Nikon on the map, in Leica screwmount. I use it on my M2 & M3 via adapter. It's right up there quality-wise with my 90mm Summicron. My 135mm lens is also a screwmount Nikkor, the f/3.5. Paid $75 for it, including the metal shade, and IMO it kicks the butt of every screwmount 135 Leitz ever made and even gives the M versions a run for their money. :-)

-Dave-

From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2001
From: Bill Brady [email protected]
Subject: Re: Where to purchase a Zenit...

[email protected] Wrote:

>http://www.russianartmall.com/Merchant2/welcome.htm

Good choice, better is:

http://www.kievcamera.com/index.html

Kiev Camera - Mike Fourman is the best camera dealer I've dealt with in over 40 years of camera buying. Good prices, his stuff is 1st class and he will work with you to get you what you want/need.

Cheapest is:

http://mockba123.250x.com/

Been shopping for a Zenit myself.

Wm. "Bill" Brady

From Leica Topica List:
Date: Mon, 15-Jan-2001
From: kirk tuck [email protected]
Subject: A quick review of the Heliar 15

I bought a 15mm Heliar from Rich Pinto just before the Holidays (thrilled with Rich's service and his fun phone manner) and I threw it in the bag with an M6 and my medium format stuff and zoomed off to photograph and annual report for a large wastewater management company with facilities around the country. Nothing like the glamour of an annual report for a company who's state of the art facilities process human waste!!!!

Anyway, the brief from the design company called for medium format, which I dutifully shot. But after shooting the real stuff I shot fun stuff alongside with the 15mm. Quick spot meter, hyperfocal distance. Snap, snap, snap.

The CEO and officer portraits went all medium format, but when I saw the 35mm of the facilities and the landscapes and the heavy equipment I was blown away. That lense is very, very sharp. I does wonderful visual things to skys and aeration ponds and tanks and towers.

I sent the images along to the design firm and they are using almost all of the 35mm imagery in place of the 120.

running one shot double truck. The lense is great, but the M's are magic. The make all the lenses work better. I don't know how, they just do.

kirk

Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why Leica?

[email protected] wrote:

> Hi folks,
>
> ..... why (both solid technical reasons and fuzzy likes and dislikes) people
> love Leica cameras.

1) Good glass, and 2) Reputation for making good glass for a looooong time.

Oh yeah......and bodies that use them well and last a long time.

They've made wonderful stuff for a very, very long time and still do.

That said, after more than two decades of owning/using Leica, I dumped it all in favor of Nikon about seven years ago. I'll never go back. The reason was automation -- bells and whistles, some would say. Leica tends to lag behind in the bell/whistle department. With bells/whistles, I take many more photos and a much higher percentage of them are keepers. Neither I, agents, or customers can tell my Nikon photos from my Leica photos. That's it for me.

Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2000
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why Leica?

"Thaths" [email protected] wrote:

My response is about the M6 TTL rangefinder. First, after shooting with SLR's for more than 30 years it is my position that we are educated by commercials to believe that more gadgets on your camera will produce a superior pictures. So, we go from on generation of SLR to another that will auto-bracket, auto-focus and auto-meter, thus giving us the ultimate amount of customization with the guarantee of exceptional shots suitable for a museum collection. Not so.

The reality is considerably different. In the camera there is aperture, shutter, meter and glass. Leica 35mm glass is arguably the best in the world. For better or worse, the controls are in you hands with the Leica. There is no autopilot to guide you down the runway.

The rangefinder is smaller than most SLR's, lighter to carry with lenses and a back saver. When you shoot with the M6 there is no mirror at the moment of shot. So no black out. You know if you have a great picture, or a terrible one. Believe me, we all have taken shots with the M6 with the cap on, failed to wind the camera or not synched

the shutter speed correctly with the flash. You goof up, then you pay the price. But you learn to see our world in photographic terms. Thinking is a part of the process. Leica makes you think in photographic terms, because if you do not then you have horrible pictures suitable for the trashcan.

The reason I shoot with Leica M when I have auto Nikon, Minolta and Contax at my disposal is because I know my results will be better. All the pain of loading the Leica M6 from the bottom, having to wind the shutter to get a meter reading and other issues are ultimately worth it when I view the photos. I sincerely believe Leica M makes you a better photographer. Some people do not have the time or personality to submit themselves through the Leica learning curve, thereby dismissing the Leica as totally absurd without any value. For them, their position is valid. Clearly, it is not for everyone.

Leica M seamlessly integrates into you brain, which translates to your pictures. With Leica it is about the "global picture". What do you want to achieve? How are you going to get there? You drive the camera. The camera does not drive you.

Individuals pay considerable money for Leica. Obviously, the inherent quality of their equipment is a part of the equation- one only has to look at Ebay to see the value of 25-year-old Leica lenses. The current line of ASPH lenses is simply stunning. Results win in my book!

From an economic perspective, Leica may be a better investment than stocks unless the Federal Reserve gets realistic about reducing interest rates, increasing liquidity and firming up the financial infrastructure. Good luck and go for it!

Edward

...

Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2000
From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why Leica?

max_perl wrote:

> I have seen a lot of Leica photos and also a not of Nikon photos (I am a
> member of the danish Nikon Club). Leica's are very very good....no doubt
> about this.....but Nikkors are good too.....especially if you know what
> lenses
> to buy. Some of the Nikkors are not too good.....but the best is so close to
> the best that it is the man behind the camera which controls the final
> result.

Nikon is good too. The best Nikkors certainly are on par with the best Leica (or other high end brand) lenses. No doubt about it. One thing about Nikon i certainly don't like is that, as you mention, some of the Nikkors are not too good. I feel they should make their two, three, or perhaps even more lines more easily recognisable. The only thing (is it?) to get an idea what quality to expect from a Nikkor lens is to have a look at what amount of money you are expected to pay.

[Ed. note: just for fun, a sigma beats Leica? ;-) but I have reservations about using photodo scores and reviews for serious lens evaluations...]
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001
From: Jan Bottcher [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] What is it with the 25mm Focal length

Javier,

the Zeiss 2.8/25 for Contarex, Rollei, Voigtl�nder/Icarex TM and Contax should (lenswise speaking) be pretty much the same.

The Leitzians are unhappy since Color-Foto tested a bunch of 24mm lenses, and the cheap Sigma Mini-Wide 2.8/24 beat all the rest including the Leica-R lens.

My personal comparison revealed that my Sigma 2.8/24 (in Yashica mount, mounted to a Contax 139) is a bit better (edge-sharpness) than my 2.8/25mm Distagon (HFT coated, in M42 mount with QBM-adaptor on a Rolleiflex SL 35 ME). My 2.8/25 Made by Rollei (in QBM 3 pin mount) is untested so far.

Jan

Javier Perez schrieb:

> Hi
> For awhile I've been hearing that the Leica guys
> aren't too happy with
> the 24 Elmarit. It might be only because it's a
> Minolta lens but there's
> probably more too it. Now I've been hearing that the
> Contax guys aren't
> happy with the 25 Distagon! I can only assume that the
> Rollei 25 has
> gotten the same reviews. Is this all just a
> coincidence or is there something
> about the 24/25 focal length at F2.8 or better that
> challenges lens designers
> beyond their capabilities? As far as I know the only
> 25 that's beyond criticism
> is the Contarex Distagon. But then again perhaps this
> one too has problems.
> I'm happy with my 25/4 Flektogon but that's another
> story.
> Javier

[Ed. note: the Konica rangefinder cameras are 0.01mm different flange distance from the Leica M6 series, meaning either you modify your camera body and lenses to match Leica, or match Leica lenses to your camera body by resetting the infinity position etc. yeech!]

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2001
From: Mark Bergman [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Camera choice

Well Bob you really ruined my day with this information. I probably paid no heed to the earlier posts because I never thought I would get a Konica. However based on your post I just had to know-:(.

With a dial caliper I measured a difference of 0.01 inches (not 0.01 mm). Anyway since it's been snowing and cold I found a sheet of newspaper, taped it on the wall, and loaded my M4 with Ilford FP4. Shot a series with my 90F2 Summicron and 50 F1.5 Voightlander. Then rewound the roll and put it in the Hexar, advanced the film and shot the same series again. I could not tell any difference with the 50F1.5 mounted on either body at any aperture.

In fact I was really amazed that the contrast and resolution on the Voightlander was just as good wide open as it was stopped downed. Truly a good lens. However the 90 Summicron was a different story. You had to stop it down to 5.6 on the Hexar to almost equal the lens mounted on the M4 wide open. It never was as sharp on the Hexar as it was on the M4 (wide open).

I usually only use the 90 to shoot portraits so I guess I didn't really notice. I curious if Konica simply put a shim behind the lens mount to move it out 0.01" or if you really need to lap that much off the back of mount. If it snows tomorrow I might find out.

----- Original Message -----

From: "Bob Shell" [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2001
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Camera choice

> > From: "Mark Bergman" [email protected]
> > Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001
> > Subject: Re: [Rollei] Camera choice
> >
> > Besides using all my Leica and Voightlander lenses on the Konica with no
> > problem I've used the Konica 50mm lens on my M4 with no problem.  I find it
> > very difficult to believe that the film to flange distance is different, the
> > pictures would be very unsharp.
>
>
> We discussed this here some time ago.  According to Konica their flange to
> film plane distance is 0.01mm different from Leica, and they do not intend
> that Leica lenses be used on their camera, or vice versa.  Konica in the
> UK says they will adjust the body to accept Leica lenses and work properly,
> or will adjust the Konica lenses to work on Leica bodies.
>
> Unless you shoot your lenses wide open you may not notice this mismatch.
>
> Bob

From Russian Camera List:
Date: Sun, 28 Jan 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: That Kiev RF Shutter!

Sam McCracken wrote:

>This was certainly the conventional wisdom when I first swam into the ken of
>Kievs.  My first copy of the Blue Guide ('92?) said that Kiev shutters were
>just as bloody unreliable as their prototypes,

I agree that this has been "conventional wisdom" but, alas!, it is neither "conventional" nor "wise". Prior to and immediately after the Second World War, the Contax camera was vastly preferred to the Leica for rough-country use due to the much greater reliability of the Zeiss Ikon shutter. And virtually all WWII War Correspondents who used miniature format (35mm) used Contax. And the 1953 Mount Everest expedition deliberately chose Contax II and III cameras due to the legendary toughness of their mechanisms -- and not one camera body failed during the entire trek. (The picture of Tenzing at the summit, though, was shot with a Retina Stuttgart Type 119 with a Zeiss Tessar lens, Hillary's private camera, later stolen from him.)

Marc

[email protected]

Date: 31 Jan 2001
From: [email protected] (Mark Langer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why 2K for Leica f1.4 50mm?

Tony Polson ([email protected]) wrote:

> Much of the money must go into the glass.  Small production runs of
> specialist glass must cost Leitz $$$.

Tony,

While I agree with your other points, Leica buys its glass straight out of the Schott and Hoya catalogues. It neither makes its own glass nor has specialized glass made for its use alone.

That being said, there are all sorts of inexpensive lenses that work just fine (with adapters) on my M Leicas. While I hope to upgrade some of them someday (particularly my 24mm Quantaray) to used Leica lenses, one must observe that you needn't spend a fortune on new or used lenses that work just fine on your Leica. If new Leica glass is outside someone's means, there are plenty of other alternatives to mate up with a Leica body.

Mark

From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2001
From: "Pim Stouten" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Soviet camera names/ Trivia

And don't forget the FED, named after Feliks Edmundovich Dzherzhinsky, the founder of the CheKa, the later KGB....

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Camera choice

.....

I've been investigating the claimed mismatch between Leica and Konica in flange to film distance. As supplied from the factory the Konica Hexar RF has a different measurement than a Leica. They say they can modify the Hexar body to work with Leica lenses and the Hexar lenses to work on Leica. Why the hell they just didn't make them match in the first place I asked. Because you should use Konica lenses on the Hexar they answered.

Bob

From Leica Topica Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: Hexar 50. Any good?

kirk tuck wrote:

>I have a 50 Summilux (latest version) so I don't have a Summicron.  I always
>wondered if I would be able to see a difference between the summicron
>and the summilux at f2 in real world (non-tripod world).  Just curious.
>
>Thanks, Kirk

I started with the Summicron. Now have the Summilux.

IMHO, no difference at f/2 for all practical non-tripod real world purposes.

As a 50mm lens, I like the Summilux better.

Jim

From: Ron Todd [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: 10 reasons why you *should* use a Leica

Mark Rabiner wrote: ...

> A Leica. "But everybody knows they're going out of business" was told that by EVERYBODY.
> That was 25 years ago.

...

Actually, in a sense they did go out of business. As a division of e. leitz, their sales declined to the point they could no longer earn enough revenue to carry the parents company's allotted overhead. They were "reorganized" and "down sized" into a separate company that could operate profitably at a smaller sales volume.

I figure, if you want a leica kit, buy one. If you don't have the cash, and you really want one, get a loan. The camera has a reputation of outlasting the original purchaser.

From: [email protected] (Mark Langer)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 19 Jan 2001
Subject: Re: Leica Conversion?

Aren't you contradicting yourself here Anders? There are plenty of Leica low cost alternatives. If you get a budget Leica body (screw mount or say, a user M4-2) there are zillions of used Leica, Canon, Nikon, Komura, Rodenstock, Schneider, Soviet, etc lenses that you can use. More recent brands like Bower, Cosina, Konica, Ricoh, etc. also manufacture glass that is cheaper than the Leica alternatives. And, there are now several manufacturers that are currently making Leica mount bodies, as you point out, in addition to the vast array of budget used alternatives, including Fed, Zorki, Canon, Droog, Leningrad, Nicca, Yashica, etc.

Mark

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: [email protected] (SAPasap)
Date: Wed Feb 14 2001
[1] Re: TOP TEN REASONS WHY NOT TO OWN A LEICA

Besides I doubt that I have ever bought a piece of equipment with the Leica name that didn't sell for more then I paid when I decided to trade up over the decades.

In 1996, US dealers were asking $2798 for a new standard M6 body w/US Passport. Only a few years later, new ones were selling for not quite $2000, counting rebates.

I doubt whether anyone could trade their 1996 $2798 M6 body for much within a thousand dollars of what they paid for it.

From: eromney [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2000
Subject: Crummy Leicas

Leica R4 SLR is impossibly unreliable. The original Leicaflex with outside meter was obsolete the day it was built, is reliable however. Leica 8mm movie is weak. A customer of mine in the repair trade had an awful time repairing a light leak in an M6 Leica. Turned out to be a pinhole flaw in the casting, can you believe it?? Leica CL is called the "crummy Leica" by the knowing, because its tiny RF is about useless. M5 works OK but is very clumsy.

Many of the earlier Leitz lenses were crummy for their time. 50mm F2Summar does not equal Zeiss Sonnar or Retina Xenon. Summarit F1.5 is soft compared to F1.4 Nikon. 1950's Nikon and Canon RF lenses are usually better than Leitz of the same period. . Elmar 35mm leaves a lot ot be desired. But ,with a very few exceptions, Leicas are remarkably fine. These days a camera that gives trouble usually has been wrongly repaired. Many of the finer lenses such as Summicrons have been disassembled and repolished and are no longer good. I prefer Russian lenses for the screwmount Leica.

The IIIA shutter travels slower than the curtain in the later cameras, lasts longer. I prefer this camera to IIIf, IIIg or M series. A Splendid camera, will last a lifetime. I sell every IIIg I get. We were all sorry when the M3 camera came out in the 1950's. We felt it was a step backward from the screw mount. We felt the same way when Ford replaced the classic Thunderbird with a four passenger car. Now the reverse opinion is in vogue.

Best wishes...

Ed Romney

http://www.edromney.com

Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001
From: Anders Svensson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica Conversion?

[email protected] wrote:

> The fact is that I sincerely believe that Leicia glass is better.
> Furthermore, I don't consider this to be reckless arrogance or
> exceedingly tasteless by stating what I consider valid.

Some non Leica owner observations about Leica:

1. Leica is expensive *as cameras go*. The cost of a Leica kit will be somewhere close to a half decent used car cost. Some people think this is a lot for a camera, even if many hobbies cost a lot more.

2. The usability issues of a Leica rangefinder makes the photographer (somewhat) limited what he can do - or he will need another camera as well, often a SLR. This makes a Leica even more expensive if close up photography or wildlife photography is within a photographers hobby envelope - two cameras are needed, and Leica lenses are not cross usable between camera types. If you throw a Visoflex at me, I'll duck...

3. Even if lenses are undisputedly very good, most photographers (statistically speaking) are not able to take advantage of the Leica lens quality due to print quality limits, less than ideal slide viewing facilitys and so on. There are even people that doubt that there is noticeable difference between Leica lenses and other very good lenses. There is remarkably little evidence available that Leica lenses make a difference in the form of image comparisons side by side - if lenses that cost like Leica are considered. Sometimes Leica is so uutrageously expensive that there *is* no alternative to compare to :-)

4. The starter cost for even a small Leica system (unless a used 60's or possibly 70's camera and lenses are considered) is very high. Even if buying used/pre owned, the cost is similar to good modern gear with a larger usability factor. This is a treshold even for people positive to Leica, especially if Leica is tempting them after they have invested in other good cameras and lenses.

5. There are no low cost alternatives for a Leica owner. Other quality camera brands usually have low cost alternatives, both within and outside the brand.

All these reasons (with the exception, possibly, of no 3) are good reasons to not get a Leica system, even for photographers that are positive towards Leica and perfectly able to appreciate the excellent quality and high performance.

What I feel that Leica ownership is about as much as "lens performance" is a purist way of making photographs, simplicity, non-dependability on automation, and connecting to tradition - basically non-quantifiable reasons.

I think the trend towards Leica clones (Konica, Cosina) as reactions on the absurdly high cost for a fairly low tech (but high quality) camera.

--
Anders Svensson
mail: [email protected]

From: [email protected] (McEowen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 17 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: TOP TEN REASONS TO OWN A LEICA

But, for similar money and the same shooting style (nearly silent rangefinder with a few lenses), would any of you consider a Mamiya 7?

The flaw in the question is that the two cameras are not INTENDED for similar shooting styles.

The Leica (or any quality 35mm rangefinder) is ideally suited for low light, documentary-style photography. The advantages of this type of camera are fast lenses, lightweight, compact/unobtrusive bodies, the shoot-lots 35mm approach and, as others have pointed out, the "apparent" increase in depth of field by using shorter focal length lenses. By comparison, the Mamiya (or any medium format camera) is bulkier, likely heavier, obtrusive, generally slower to operate (just the frequency of film changing confirms this) and most importantly limited to MUCH slower lenses. A medium format camera is simply not as well suited for low-light documentary style work.

All that being said, there are many schools of photography that a Mamiya 7 would be ideal -- often a much smarter choice than the Leica -- If you shoot primarily scenics in pretty decent light the Mamiya would be wonderful. The rangefinder design isn't necessary for that kind of work for the low-light aspects so much (though it would be nice for interiors with a tripod) but it makes for a more compact camera.

BTW, Some folks make the argument that faster film makes up for the slower lenses. I don't buy it. Most of the fast slide film I've seen is awful at any enlargement.

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] ARGH! and the Filter Myth!

....

> could be Lieca! I don't think Bob likes a those guys.

Absolutely wrong. I love the guys at Leica. I love their cameras and lenses. I HATE their prices. The reason so few working pros use Leica R is that they simply can not afford the investment, and the insurance!! No pro wants only one body, and most have three or four, with an assortment of lenses. Leica R is just too costly unless you work for some clients with really deep pockets. Leica M is a different situation.

There is another camera with Leica M mount coming out soon. Some of those who bowed deeply enough got to see it at PMA. It's under embargo until the end of March, though.

Bob

[Ed. note: Hermes Corp bought 30% of Leica's stock etc. recently...]
From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Re: Leica RF and company

Bob,

Might you be referring to the Nikon S3 2000 rangefinder. Saw one at Ken Hansen's about 3 months ago. Best friend in Yokohama reserved one last March and recieved it in December. Although I am not a rangefinder nut, it certainly looked magnificent.

I've also had a few words with the folks at Hermes. They bought into Leica almost exclusively so as not to see the superior craftsmanship go under. They ought to know ...they sell $2000 handbags like hotcakes.

Vincent

From Rangefinder Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 07 Mar 2001
From: "Dante A. Stella" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Contax/Nikon RF to Leica TM Adapters

Just a note - I've used an Orion on an M3 with an Opton Sonnar - the registration and r/f is perfect. But for my $2,500 I think I'd just buy a Summilux! The Opton Sonnar is phenomenal, though, but with so many good clones in LTM (notably the Canon 1.5 and Nikkor 1.4) there is really little to recommend using one like this. The Contax bodies aren't *that* bad.

Unfortunately(?), when you use that adapter, the real sleeper is the Helios-53 ($17). Blows the hell out of all of those 1950s Leica lenses. Quite unsettling!

Dante

....

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 16 Mar 2001
From: "Ken Iisaka" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Bessa-T focusing accuracy

> >M3       - 62
> >M6 .85   - 59
> >>Bessa T - 58
> >Screwmnt - 58 (II b-f, III b-g)
> >Nikon SP - 58
> >M2       - 49
> >M4,M4-2  - 49
> >M6 .72   - 49
> >Hexar RF - 41
> >Screwmnt - 41 (II - IIa, III-IIIa
> >M6 .58   - 40
> >CLE      - 28
> >Bessa R  - 24
> >CL       - 18
>
> What about the M5?

The same as M2/4/6. .72x magnification, at 49mm effective base length.

From Rangefinder Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 01 Mar 2001
From: MEBrub [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] why russian cameras?

I've considered myself really lucky at Russian buys as well. I love my 'chrome' Jupiter 3 (50/1.5) and black Jupiter 9 (85/2) on both my M5 and my BessaR. They aren't to Leica (or even Cosina) standards but they help me produce mice images with the characteristics that I like in a neg and all for half what I paid for even my Skopar. My bodies are both shallow so I am precluded from using the 35/2.8 and so will get an Ultron.

I may supplement the 50/1.5 with a Nokton for times when I need a sharper image, but am not in the market to replace the J9 even if I had the money. If money were no object I'd have the current Leica 35 ASPH and 50 Summilux in LTM to complete the outfit, but alas, I am of more meagre means than that and will make do with the new Cosina glass.

Carpe Luminem,
Michael E. Berube
http://www.GoodPhotos.com

Bern wrote:

>I myself have had a lot of luck. I have a black 35/2.8
>on my M6. I think the lens is fabulous. Moreso since
>it only cost me $50. No problems w/ my 50/2, 20/5.6 or
>85/2.

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001
From: imx [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Killing two myths in one post!

The filter myth.

degradation by a filter: good quality--> 2%, not good quality-->10%.
degradation by handholding below 1/125: 50%
degradation by (slight) defocus: 30 - 80%

The serial number myth. (read it all in my book!) The dates that are given in ALL lists of batches of serial numbers per year are dates that numbers are allocated! Actual production may be off by three years, not as an exception but quite often. Lately a leica user from Argentine emailed me with a question: he had one of the really earliest Summicrons from 1954 and wondered why the serail number list gave 1951 as a date.

Simply because the correlation between allocation dates and production dates is not a tightly coupled one. And in fact it is not an important topic. Within the Leica community the difference between date of serail number allocation, date of production and date of sales have been mixed up to become an intangible cluster. Maybe the classical Alexander of Macedonia may slice this Gordian knot.

May we all follow Ted's prime directive: To take a split second picture with a Leica camera is worth a hundred hours of talking about Leicas Or Ferengi Rule of Acquisition #131: to make a profit with a Leica camera has precedence above all other topics relating to Leica products FRoA #132: talking about Leicas without generating a bar of latinum is a waste of time.

Erwin

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001
From: imx [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] historians burden

Any Leica collector and/or historian would like to have all facts neatly arranged and ready to study.

The area of the production numbers and years of production of Leica products will however always be fragmentary and full of uncertainties, even when the collector books do suggest the contrary.

Let us face these very basic facts.

Leica has a thick book in folio format where you will find several entries on a line:

a date, two serial numbers, a lens or body identification and a code number.

As example:

17 december 1957, 1.000.000 to 1.003.000, elmarit 2.8/90, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This entry tells you that on this date the indicated serial namber range has been 'booked' for that lens. That is all! Every author of any Leica book in existence (except one) has interpreted these lines as meaning: "there have been produced 3000 elmarits, producton starting in december 1957".

In fact the correct interpretation is:

"On 17 december the factory has the intention to produce a batch of elmarit lenses and has reserved the indicated number range for that purpose and the engraving of front lens rings with the lens name and consecutive serial numbers may begin at any time."

It is a reasonable assumption that these rings have been produced. But there is no evidence what so ever in the factory records about production of lenses itself.

Several possibilities now pop up.

(A)The full range of numbers has been indeed produced, but not in one batch, but in several ones, stretching over a longer but unknown period, making it difficult to correlate the production years to the allocation years. A current case is the VE2.8/35-70. Number range has been allocated in 1998, but production is not yet finished.

(B)The full range of numbers has not been produced, but we do not know how many.

There is on the other hand fragmantary info about sold lenses (Verkaufsb�cher). But if we find a gap in the serial numbers (and many can be found), what does that mean: not produced? not sold?, sold by other means? kept in the factory? Laney's books do use the sales figures as being identical to the production numbers, which is tricky.

Sartorius uses the allocation numbers as production numbers, although he sometimes mentions the allocation principle. But he uses the allocation dates as dates of production, which is tricky too.

A small French booklet does the only thing that can be done to find reliable info: he presents the lowest and highest number he has ever spotted. But even then he does not know if and how many gaps there are.

The real production figures not being available, there is a certain amount of uncertainty around all figures and dates that try to indentify dates and numbers of production. The documents that exist give valuable info for imaginative leaps of fantasy.

The 1,5/85 is a case: production numbers are allocated from 1943, but there are sales recorded in 1949. has this lens be on stock for 6 years? are there some lenses made at a later date?

I think we should get accustomed to the fact that the world is not so well ordered and neat as we hope. And some information we may never get to a satisfactory level of reliability! Leica history is a fascinating, but somewhat trivial pursuit. But if it is taken on, it should be done professionally according to the rules of the profession of industrial history.

Erwin

From Leica Topica Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 18 Mar 2001
From: Akhil Lal [email protected]
Subject: FYI: Bessa L on Special Offer

Hello Everyone,

Just wanted list members to know that B & H has the Bessa L on special offer for $ 129, brand new, with full USA warranty.

Regards,
Akhil

From LEica Mailing List (Topica)
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001
From: "Mark PEARCE" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Impressions of Soviet RFs as Shooters

Ted;

The Fed/Zorki 1 is a straight back-engineered copy of a Leica II. The rangefinder is pretty good (if dimish) but the viewfinder is on the squinty side. As a user the Fed-2 is a much better proposition.The combined range/viewfinder is a bit dim by German/Japanese standards but an improvement over the 'three window' cameras. It is also adjustable for diopter correction. The back comes off for much easier loading. All of these cameras have 1/25-1/500 plus B shutters.

I've never used a Zorki-3, but it looks as if you get slow speeds and a slightly different range/viewfinder.

Try Michael Bierman at www.Sovietcameras.com for a dealer; he is based in Minnesota. On e-Bay check 'lemiu' in the LA area. Take his grading down about 1 1/2 notch, as he tends to be optimistic. There is also 'fedka' in the NY area, but I have never done business with him.

Mark

From Leica Mailing List (Topica)
Date: Fri, 23-Mar-2001
From: Franka T. Lieu [email protected]
Subject: RE: Impressions of Soviet RFs as Shooters

Have deal with Fedka and agree that he's the one of the better honest person to del with on eBay. Also Cupog from Czech, his grading is neither optimistic nor conservative either.

regarding the RF themselves, you might like to try the Zorki 3M which has a hugh VF/RF ( almost 1:1 size ), and the later Zorki all have fairly clean if small view. The Zorki-6 has a modern conveience of hinged back. I use a mint Fed 3 with the Voigtlander 25/4.0. Just sold my 15/4.5 though.

Franka T.L.

From Leica Mailing List (Topica)
Date: Fri, 23-Mar-2001
From: John Lehman [email protected]
Subject: RE: Impressions of Soviet RFs as Shooters

I have a Fed 5 and recently sold a Fed 2. The latter (bought from Lemiu) required a CLA, but was well-made and fairly elegant; it also has a long rangefinder base. I sold it partly because of the difficulty of using the viewfinder/rangefinder with glasses, and partly because the position of the accessory shoe behind the rangefinder path made it impossible to mount auxillary viewfinders and such. The Industrar lens was excellent; I kept it and use it as the normal lens on my Bessa-R.

The Fed 5 I bought new from Lemiu was much lower in build-quality, but works fine with all of my LTM accessories. For details, see

http://www.geocities.com/al7jj/index.html

...

FRom Leica Mailing List (Topica)
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: [RF List] Impressions of Soviet RFs as Shooters

Hello Ted,

The Zorki 3m seems to be the best chioce.

Larger combinded single window range/viewfinder.

No bright lines or paralax corection),

Single shutter speed dial, 1 to 1/1000 second.

Removable back with twin Contax II type locks

fedka in NY is a good egg, he replaced my defective Keiv 4am

Best regards, Stephen William FOYLE

...

[Ed. note: not an endorsement, just pricing info fyi...]
From Leica Mailing List (Topica)
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: [RF List] Impressions of Soviet RFs as Shooters

http://www.fedka.com/index_ie.htm

He has a BLACK Fed 2 for $175.00 this is a custom refinish

he has no Zorki 3m's ...more expected

he has a Zorki 5 for $105.00

Best regards, Stephen William FOYLE

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2001
From: "B. D. Colen" [email protected]
Subject: Re: A CHANCE TO KICK B. D./now - A GAME

Okay, guys, this is it. Put your Leicas where your mouths are! :-)

I have gone through the 23 images I posted yesterday and I think I know which lenses captured which images.

Now let's see if you do.

Possible choices are:

M 21 ASPH, Nikon 20 2.8 AF D, Nikon 28 1.4 AF D, M 35 Summilux ASPH, Nokton 50 1.5, Nikon 60 2.8 AF D Macro, Leica 75 Summilux, Nikon 85 1.4 AF D, Nikon 180 2.8 ED manual focus.

List the image name and the lens with which it was taken. Person who gets the most correct answers gets a prize. Person who gets the most incorrect answers gets humiliated. ;-)

Get ready, get set, GO!!

http://www.nikonnet.com/album/?id=4292729823

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Subject: Re: A CHANCE TO KICK B. D./now - A GAME

Yup. Here's another test ... go to

http://www.bayarea.net/~ramarren/AlfaRomeos/TZ-AID/AR-TZ.html

Some of the pictures on that page where taken with a Minox EC, others with a Rolleiflex TLR. Tell me which were taken with which camera.

Godfrey

...

From Leica Topica Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Subject: RE: nikon lenses on M body

>Steve Gandy imports these adapters and they're great.  I have one.  They
>work spectacularly well and don't cost a fortune.  You are correct: the
>Nikon lens inscriptions are fine.  While there are those who ask why, I  ask
>why not...it's sure a heck of a lot cheaper for an occasionally used  focal
>length than to break the bank for the genuine article...but, I guess  there's
>a bit of gear freak in all of us.

Thanks Curt! I looked them up on Gandy's site. I suspect I'll have to have one for my 20, one of my favorite Nikkors.

>I'm using the early
>autofocus version of the 24mm and the AF-D version of the 20mm (
>strangely enough since I don't have any AF bodies, but I got them both
>second hand).  On my F, the 20mm is focussed at infinity when the scale
>reads between 5ft and Inf, a small but noticable turn of the focus ring
>backing off the stop is needed to get a sharp image of distant objects.
>This is also true of the 24 and it is the same on my other camera
>bodies.

Ah. I have no experience with most of the Nikkor AF series lenses, except for the 180/2.8 and 70-300 zoom.

>Oh the same, the shame of using a Nikon lens on a Leica! The shame!
>Shame aside, it works well and the glass is great!

LOL ... I use a Cosina/Voigtl�nder lens too...

Godfrey

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001
From: "Steve Unsworth" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] 'Russian' Leica-fit lenses

Thanks

Regards
Steve Unsworth

- -----Original Message-----
Sent: 06 April 2001
Subject: Re: [Leica] 'Russian' Leica-fit lenses

I tested the 90mm Elmar and the 90mm Jupiter at eight feet using a lens test chart. From about two stops from wide open, the lenses both seemed to be equally as sharp.

Roland Smith

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 6 Apr 2001
From: "Stanislaw B.A. Stawowy" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] 'Russian' Leica-fit lenses

> A couple of weeks ago, you commented on the jupiter 12
> lenses.  Just after that, I purchased a Jupiter 8, black f2
> 50mm.  The lens seems to be quite sharp and smooth to
> operate.
>
> The one issue I run into after so many years with other
> lenses is the diaphragm setting that rotates with the front
> of the lens when I focus.
>
> You noted in your discussion of the Jup. 12 that it has an
> "awkward" diaphragm setting.   My question, (finally)  . . .
> Do all Jupiter lenses rotate their aperture setting?

No. Jupiter 8 (2/50) rotates aperture setting, so early (black) versions had two diaphragm scales, on two sides of aperture ring, to make adjusting aperture simpler.

Jupiter 12 (2.8/35) also rotates whole front part, but it is a issue with a lens from which this one was copied from (Zeiss Biogon 2.8/35), so blame Zeiss for this. Or blame Canada, which is very popular both among Leica collectors and South Park watchers.. :)

Industar 22 (3.5/50) also rotates whole front part, just like Elmar 3.5/50, its earlier brother.

Jupiter 3 (1.5/50) does not rotate front element as far as I remember (Michael can probably assure you on this).

Jupiter 9 (2/85) does not rotate front element in majority of versions, but M42/Pentax thread version does... One of earliest though... Also Jupiter 11 (4/135) does not rotate front part in all three versions I saw.

About optical difference between Elmar 4/90 and Jupiter 9 (2/85); all have some advantages each over other:

Elmar 4/90:

+ Tessar-like construction, so center of FOV is sharp from wide open up and corners good at f/8, but corners never are really sharp

+ Very little flare and very good contrast (we are speaking about postwar coated version)

+ Small! and light, but front element rotates!

Jupiter 9 (2/85):

+ Two stops brighter!!!

+ Sonnar construction, considerably flare-free, with nearly constant sharpness across whole field (OK, corners ARE worse, but much less so than with Elmar). But somewhat uncontrasty (NOT soft!) wide open, good from f/2.8 and very good at f/5.6

+ Heavy! Big! But looks cool, too................

Both lenses have their own merits; you just should use whatever suits you... BTW; my favourite lens (and sharpest one!) is Jupiter 12 (2.8/35). Is even a tad sharper than Summitar at all f/stops. Not bat for ancient Zeiss Biogon design! :-)

- -----
St.
(Stanislaw B.A. Stawowy)
http://www.geocities.com/Stanislaw_Stawowy

From Leica Topica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: Summilux-M 50/1.4

Joseph Yao wrote:

>Leica once told me that approx. 500 pieces are sold annually.  This is  odd,
>since the Summilux-M 50 is my favourite Leica M lens!  Sure, there are
>optically superior lenses, but I feel most at home with the Summilux-M 50
>and it gives me the look I like most.
>
>Joseph

Ditto...

Jim

From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001
From: Uwe Flammer [email protected]
Subject: Re: Some random thoughts

Uhr schrieb [email protected] unter [email protected]:

> I fully agree with your point, but didn't Leica always cost a month's  wages
> or so? It doesn't seem like you can look back and say that they were  ever
> really relatively cheaper, unless at some point the Deutschmark was  really
> weak to the U.S. Dollar. I imagine that the lenses may have been  slightly
> more affordable, as they just seem way out of bounds. -Marcus

In fact, Leica's were always very expensive, at least for German photographers. If US soldiers could purchase them for cheap, the reason was the high $ exchange rate first (1 USD = 4 DEM during the sixties). Also, i assume that the PX offered better prices compared to any local photo shop.

From the mid-sixties to the seventies, lots of German photographers traded their Leica M's and went into Nikon F's. So, for some years, used Leicas were available rather cheap. Because of this reason, Leica first decided to stop M production and later, moved M production to Canada after the $ exchange rate went down.

Since the intoduction of the M6, the camera is "Made in Germany" again. One time, i read in a magazine that 90% of the production are sold to collectors which put them on stock without shooting even one film. But believe it or not, sometimes you really can see people in Germany, carrying Leica M's and taking pictures!

Best regards
Uwe

From Leica User Group Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Soviet Lens Qualities

Dante Stella wrote:

>       You're right, it is a broad brush.  I have used these things from
>a wide period (late 50s to late 70s) and it is my impression that they  got
>worse as time went on.  I had the same impression with the 85/2.

Well, there is more than a kernel of truth in what you say, Lone Ranger. However, the final lot of Jupiter-3's, from 1986 until 1995 or so, were vastly the best of the lot, with improved QC, better mounts, and MC. The 2/85 Jupiter-9 IS a problem: my 2/8.5cm CZJ Sonnar T is flatly a better lens than any I have used in LTM, though the Kiev RF versions I have used are quite nice and work fine, as is the M42 version I own.

I suppose a lot depends on the factory producing the lenses -- Zagorsk (the "eyeball" factory), KMZ (the horizontal trapezoid), and Lytkarino (the "C" in a circle) are the best, while Kazan (the vertical trapezoid) is pretty fair, as well. Arsenal (an oblate triangle) generally produces good stuff as well, but has never made LTM gear.

Just a user's view!

Marc

[email protected]

From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 25 May 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian MC JUPITER 9 - 2/85mm ZENIT LENS

> From: [email protected]
> Date: Fri, 25 May 2001
> Subject: [russiancamera] Russian MC JUPITER 9 - 2/85mm ZENIT LENS
>
> I am a Pentax user and looking for the following lens for M42 mount:
>
> Russian MC JUPITER 9 - 2/85mm ZENIT LENS
>
> Does any list member know the quality of this lens? Please advise.

As mentioned in an earlier post, I have one under the Cambron brand name. It's a very good performer, and compact and light making it a good travel lens.

Bob

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: Ron Todd [email protected]
Date: Sun Jun 10 2001
Subject: Re: Leica...

OT I thought the CL was actually withdrawn because it ate into the more profitable M4 sales. See Mr. Gandy's explanation:

http://www.cameraquest.com/leicacl.htm

(Down near the bottom of the page.)

...

From Russian Camera Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: Jupiter and other lense types

Robert Lilley wrote:

>I know that there seems to be a series of Jupiter lenses, are all Jupiter
>lenses made by the same manufacturer or is Jupiter considered a type of
>lens, etc?

There are:

2.8/35 Jupiter-12       LTM and Kiev/Contax RF BM
1.5/50 Jupiter-3        LTM and Kiev/Contax RF BM
2/50 Jupiter-8          LTM and Kiev/Contax RF BM
2/85 Jupiter-9          LTM and Kiev/Contax RF BM
4/135 Jupiter-11        LTM and Kiev/Contax RF BM
2/180 Jupiter-6         (Zenit SLR only)

All are clones of Prewar Carl Zeiss Jena designs, the Jupiter-12 of the Biogon and the other of Sonnars. LTM lens production comes from KMZ, Zagorsk, and Kazan, while most, if not all, Kiev/Contax RF BM lenses are from Arsenal in Kiev. No one factory of these four is better than another in my experience.

Marc

[email protected]

From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: RE: Jupiter and other lens types

M42 = a screwmount 42mm by 1mm (T-mount is 42mm by 0.75mm)

LTM = Leica thread-mount 39mm by 26 turns-per-inch Whitworth and an optical registration of 28.8mm

Contax RF BM = Contax rangefinder bayonet-mount

Zenit M39 = 39mm by 26 turns-per-inch Whitworth and an optical registration of 45.5mm

Marc

[email protected]

From: [email protected] (Iskandar Taib)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 15 Jun 2001
Subject: Re: Russian Leica copies

Robert Monaghan [email protected] wrote:

>see http://www.smu.edu/~rmonagha/mf/rangefinder.html and mf/clones.html
>also russian camera mailing list (egroups.com/yahoo.com)  HTH bobm

I found this on:

http://www.fortunecity.com/marina/marine/569/rusrngfdrs/ruscamwhy.html

>1 - 10. Load film. This requires its own website.

ROFL!!!!!!

>11. Set film speed on meter (hand held or accessory shoe mounted).
>12. Define object to be photographed.
>13. Determine desired lens focal length. Mount same.
>14. Get meter reading.
>15. Select f stop and shutter speed based on meter.
>16. Focus through rangefinder. This requires a fair amount of available 
>light as these are not very bright.
>17. Compose shot through accessory viewfinder. Remember to correct for parallax.
>18. Check meter again in case light has changed.
>19. Push shutter button.
>20. Wind film.
>21. Since the meter is unreliable, bracket shots both ways.

I also wonder if early Leica owners also had to abide by such rules as "you have to cock the shutter before changing shutter speed", and "you must fire the shutter before rewinding the film". I wonder what happens if you're winding the film, and it won't go any further because you've hit the end of the roll (the film counter must be set manually, of course..)..

I guess I get to find out now.. I've just bought a $16 Fed-2 from some guy in the Ukraine.. This one actually looks like an early Leica.

--
Iskandar Taib

[Ed.note: Leica's own clones - by Minolta ;-)]
From Leica Topica Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 04 Jun 2001
From: Mike Johnston [email protected]
Subject: Re: Users vs collectors

Mark Loudon wrote:

> I intend to use
> voigtlander lenses as I cannot imagine being in a position to afford the
> top leica ones - the aging 50mm Summarit I have now is lovely at times
> but limited...[snip]...nor do I want to use a pre-war
> camera with a non-coated lens, no meter and a finder I can't see through
> when people have improved the technology of optics so much.

Mark,

I can give you two good options for lenses. The first is to keep a lookout for a DR (Dual-Range) 50mm Summicron without the closeup "eyes." Those lenses are worth twice as much with the eyes, and can be quite cheap without them (in the range of US$300-$450), yet the DR is the best-built Leica lens of all time and it makes a splendid 50mm. The closeup option is more or less a kludge anyway, easily superceded by any cheap SLR. You don't need no steenking eyes.

The even cheaper and, if you can believe it, even slightly better option is to hunt down a 40mm f/2 Minolta Rokkor-M. This is the lens that Minolta built for the CL and CLE. It's a copy of the Leica Summicron-C 40mm only better, because it's multi-coated. It's also an absolute stone killer lens--one of my all-time favorite lenses. They can be had for less than US$300. The Leica version is good too, just not quite _as_ good.

The 40 M-Rokkor will bring up the 50mm framelines on your M6, which is onconvenient, but it's only a slight modification to the lens to make it bring up the 35mm lines. Any qualified Leica repairperson can do it. And the 35mm framelines in the M6 are actually MORE accurate for the 40mm at infinity focus than they are for the 35mm! They're more accurate for the 35mm lens at close-focus. The 40mm covers somewhat less than the framelines show at close distances, but this takes only a short time to get used to.

You simply won't believe how beautiful that lens is. To me, it's a toss-up between it and the pre-ASPH 35mm Summicron, and I've owned both.

--Mike

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2001
From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rollei TLR in use.

S Dimitrov wrote:

> Well, yes for the products heyday, as many individuals had paved the way
> for these products to be used professionally. But, in the late 20's to
> 30's the Leica and the Rollei were not the tools of the professional.
> Granted there where individuals who bucked the system, but they were not
> the norm. Almost somewhat akin to today's situation with the M product.
> Didn't LIFE fire WG Smith, at one point, for using a Leica?
>
> Slobodan

Yea they wanted him to use a Rollei!

If everyone at the joint were all using Speed Graphics they'd fire you for using that Rollei.

I think we are talking format here not effete example of that format.

Mark Rabiner
http://www.rabiner.cncoffice.com/

From LEica Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001
From: Mike Quinn [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Resolution vs. Contrast?

This is exactly what made me switch from Japanese to German glass years ago. I was initially disturbed by the low contrast of my Leica lens, but found that I could adjust contrast pretty well when developing and printing. #1 gets my vote as Leica glass.

If the edges are sharper, I usually suspect that my focus was slightly off (since the edges are a bit farther away). That might also explain the fuzzy characters...

Mike Quinn

Peter Klein wrote:

> In other words, Lens
> #2's image appears to be of lower resolution, but higher contrast.
>
> Both lenses seem to have about equal resolving power at f/5.6 and  narrower,
> but Lens #2 continues to have the appearance of better contrast at these
> openings.  Oddly, at a couple of stops in this range, both lenses show
> slightly more readable characters near the *edges* of the slide than in  the
> center!

From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001
From: Rich Lahrson [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei]Zorki and Rollei was Rollei, HCB, Zeiss & leica

Hi Dale,

I've got 2 of the 50/3.5 Industars(sp?), the Elmar copies. The camera fits in my front pants pocket or back-pocket bicycle jersey. I use a Leitz 50mm separate brightline finder in the accessory shoe. This gives an optical image that is lifesize, 1:1 and also showing what is not in the image. A thousand times better than the Zorki's finder or any of the Leica screwmount built-in finders for that matter.

I'm mostly a 50mm lens photographer for the 35mm format. But if a Voightlander 12mm/5.6 lens magically appeared, I'd mount it on the Zorki!

Cheers,

Rich Lahrson

[email protected]

[email protected] wrote:

> Hi Rich,
>
> Which lenses do you use on the Zorki? I use the Contax copy Kiev 2 and
> Kiev 4am. I never leave the house without one. It set next to the
> Rolleiflex 3,5e or Rolleicord Va in my shoulder bag.
>
> Dale

From Rangefinder Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001
From: daniel Tye [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Kiev 4a

I have been nothing but pleased with mine. Some of my best pictures were made after I abandoned my OM-10 for a Zorki 4k and Kiev 4. Make sure it has a take up spool however, mine did not and I have resorted to Scotch-taping my leaders onto one from a kodak film cartridge. The Jupiter 11 135mm I have also performs very well.

Daniel Tye

From Rangefinder Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001
From: "Mark PEARCE" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Kiev 4a

Five minutes with a hacksaw blade (or 30 seconds with a Dremel tool) will cut a leader slot in the take-up spool.

Mark

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei]Zorki and Rollei was Rollei, HCB, Zeiss & leica

Hi Rich and Rob,

I often use the 1,5/50mm on my Kiev Rfs. It is the Sonnar design and was made in 1953. I also have a set Jupiter lenses 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 135mm, with a universal finder. (I am waiting on the new 25mm from Japan. It is one of the first MC lens released in this mount.) I put the 35mm on at summer outdoor gatherings and shot a few rolls. Those times when I need a bunch of photos for Uncle and Aunt X or the In-laws, but never need more then a 4x6 or a rare 8x10.

The better made RF camera body is the Kiev 2 and is the image of the Contax II. I am told some parts were from Germany. The Kiev 4am is not as well made, but has a hot shoe.

I do not have a Zorki. So I cannot compare them.

The Kiev RFs are the 35mm cameras I use the most. When it comes to most used cameras and film it is 120 and Rollei TLRs. At a relative's wedding, I had a Rolleicord Va in my hands and the Kiev 2 around my neck. (I was a guest at the wedding.) The "professional" wedding photographer commented "You have a great 1950s retro look." I never thought of it as a "look" However after seeing her results, I had the better quality images. The Cord's Xenar out performed a 35mm with zoom lens on an 11x14 print. No surprise, I guess that is part of the 1950s retro look. :^)

Dale

...

From Russian Camera Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: grind lens surface

> From: "Kelvin" [email protected]
> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001
> Subject: Re: [russiancamera] grind lens surface
>
> The rest are hardly
> coated at all. My specific example is the SMC 35/3.5 ... and I have
> read articles to this effect re: early SMC lenses.

The chief optical designer for Leica once told me that multicoating makes a difference only on some lenses, and in lenses where it does make a difference it is not necessary to use it on all surfaces, so they didn't.

Also, some of the special optical glass types used today do not accept coating, much less multicoating, very well. They may only be single coated or not coated at all.

Bob

From Russian Camera Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: grind lens surface

> From: "Kelvin" [email protected]
> Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001
> Subject: Re: [russiancamera] grind lens surface
>
> What's his take on Leica lenses in comparison to what the Japanese are
> doing?

Leica lenses are better. The fewer compromises you have to make in design, the better the lens can be. When you design and build lenses on a practically "cost no object" basis as Leica does, you can build the best lenses in the world. But that makes the lenses very expensive. There is no way around this.

For details on how Leica tests lenses, which is very different from how the Japanese do it, see the section about this in Dennis Laney's book Leica Lens Practice. Wolfgang helped Dennis write this section.

We spoke several times about comparing other lenses against Leica. The best lenses coming out of Japan are, of course, the Japanese-built Leica and Zeiss. Beyond that, Leica has the most respect for Canon, some of whose lenses test very close to theirs. The other brands all fall short of the mark, some disastrously so. For obvious reasons including that information was shared with me on a confidential basis, I can't go into a ranking of other brands based on Leica's tests. They do buy and fully test almost every lens that comes on the market.

Bob

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Vs: [Leica] Russian Leica Copy Heresy

Hmmm, for the price of a good Leica book you get a Russian Leica copy! My Zorki (Leica II copy) has a misaligned rangefinder, but otherwise is in excellent cosmetic condition. It doesn't bother me since I use it as a functional toy and display item. For this purpose I wouldn't want to invest in a "real" Leica in equivalent condition. If you are also interested in the big rival, the Contax, you will find that a good Kiev is to find than a rusty Contax with rotten leatherette.

Its not the real thing, but better than a picture in a collectors' book. And the early Zorkis, Feds and Kievs are very close copies of the real things.

Hans-Peter

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2001
From: "Stanislaw B.A. Stawowy" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Russian Leica Copy Heresy

> Has anyone tried to shoot one of the "Russian" LTM copies that are  showing
> up....?  Do they properly accept LTM Lenses?  Are the cameras in  tolerance
> when received?  Do they last?
>
> They look like a Leica IIIC of IIIF. Sometimes in gold with audacious
> markings...!

I have a Zorki (not Zorki 1 , just Zorki). As I can judge from interior and overall design, it is incredibily similar to Leica II. The same elements, easily shareable (I actually repaired one Leica II with Zorki parts). Rangefinder mirror, being usually never and made in slightly different way, colors image more yellowish than this in Leica, but is usually brighter and tad easier to focus.

Body covering is far worse than Leica II vulcanite, but doesn't crack as easily.

Rangefinder cam catches Elmar 3.5/135 focusing tab, so you cannot use Elmar on Zorkis and Feds. Despite this, you can use Summars, Elmars, Summitars and all that stuff on Russian cameras, and it will couple well to rangefinder; you can adjust rangefinder too.

These are well built cameras, made from chromed brass, not too heavy and usually having newer and therefore better working shutters. An excellent second bodies for III / Bessa R/T / Canon 6/7 users!

There is also Russian Rangefinder Users Group at [email protected] also :)

Email me privately for details about Russian rangefinders :)

- -----
St.

[Ed. note: reportedly some early Hexar rf lenses were slightly off by 0.1mm in lens registration distances, perhaps to avoid legal wrangles?...]
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001
From: kirk tuck [email protected]
Subject: Definitive Hexar Leica Answer

After reading post after post here and on other site, debating the compatibility of M Series Leicas and Hexar Rf lenses and cameras I finally had a good reason to inquire. I bought a 50mm Hexar lens dirt cheap. About the price of a Leica UV filter. And, as I like to shoot close up and wide open I quickly decided the lens was a bad performer. Obviously not sharp. Then I tried the infinity focus test. (at least a 1/4 mile away). The lens would not focus on infinity. I tried all four of my bodies and, nope. No inifinity focus. All the Leica lenses focused on infinity just fine, by the way.

I took the lens to my Leica repair guy, Jerry Sullivan at Precision Camera, here in Austin. He put it on an instrument called a collimator and said, "nope, doesn't focus on infinity." With a few deft twiddles of some screwdrivers and spanner wrenches he had the thing apart and repositioned the ring that controls the location of the rear rangefinder ring (or cam?) Did the final adjustments on the collimator, etc.

We checked for infinity focus and close focus. Perfect. He looked at a test grid through the collimator and said, "Let's compare this test grid with a new Summicron." We took one off the shelf and tested it alongside the Konica lens. They were identical in performance wide open.

This led me to do an on film test. Tripod, velvia, same body, same roll, cable release. Absolutely no discernable difference between the two for sharpness and contrast.

Wrap up. Konicas and Leicas have a different distance between the lens flange and the film plane. Konica Lenses can be adjusted to work well on Leica cameras. I assume Konica RF's can be adjusted for Leica lenses. You just can't mix the two.

Finally, having seen a bunch of konica 50's that were ditched so that Leica owners could use the RF with their stable of Leica lenses I can only conjecture that for the purchase price of around $100 in a box and the expenditure of approximately $85 in tech service you can have a lens that is the equivilent of the 50 Summicron at $995.

Just trying to figure out how to get the Leica logo on the lens.

Roasting but still focusing in Austin. Kirk

From Leica Topica Mailing List;
Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: From Howard Cummer: Leica Hexar back focus - new info

But the fact remains, the spec's ARE different. How one chooses to interpret this is, of course, up to the individual.

I choose to interpret it that Leica lenses are made for Leicas and Hexar lenses are made for Hexars.

u Jim

>On June 7 I asked on the LUG:
>>Anybody know what is the bandwidth for Leica backfocus? Is it 27.8 mm  +/-
>>0.01 or is it 27.8mm +/-0.02 - the former yielding a bandwidth of 0.02  and
>>the latter a bandwidth of 0.04??
>
>a difference of only 0.05mm. This difference can be masked by camera  shake
>or focussing errors in the real world.
>I speculate that the few people who have had difficulty focussing Leica
>lens on Hexar bodies either have Leica lens slightly out of spec (like my
>new 75 Summilux now on its way to Solms) or a Hexar RF body at the  extreme
>of its tolerance of 0.03mm yielding a maximum difference of 0.08mm from  the
>Leica spec. I have now decided to stop wasting film testing my lenses on  my
>Hexar and go out and take pictures, (amber rain warning in Hong Kong
>tonight great wet street reflections). I am relieved that I have  satisfied
>myself (if no one else) about the apparent inconsistency between real  world
>use and what the original numbers on the LUG predicted.
>Cheers
>Howard.

[Ed. Note: noteworthy in context of Leica build quality claims etc.]
From Leica Topica Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2001
From: kirk tuck [email protected]
Subject: RE: Definitive Hexar Leica Answer

Actually, Roger, the newest Summicrons are made of aluminum whereas the Konica uses heavier brass and aluminum construction. The Konica may have the advantage on build quality. The real battle ground would be the glass and I would still give Leica the benefit of the doubt there. Just posted the findings as there are alot of folks using Hexars, and I thought they should know.

Best, Kirk

P.S. We pros will shoot with just about anything we can get our hands on. As long as there's a red dot somewhere nearby :-)

Roger Beamon wrote:

> but not too bad if you factor
> in the build. The Summicron IS considerably better, and that is
> important to you pros, not?

From Rangefinder Camera Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: RE: [RF List] Contax IIa / Kiev

David,

This is probably more than you want to know about the post WW2 history of the Contax.

During WW2 both Leica and Contax made cameras for the German army. Because the Leica mechanism was far simpler than that of the Contax, most copies and second source cameras used the Leica model. The Kardon camera, a Leica III copy, was made for the US armed forces. The Russians made a Leica lookalike called the Zorki. The Japanese Kwannon (later Canon) was based on the Leica. All had Leica 39mm interchangable lens mounts and a horizontal fabric focal plane shutter.

After WW2 the machinery of the Zeiss Contax factory, located in Dresden in the Russian Zone, was shipped to the USSR where, until recently, Contax II and III (with attached meter) lookalikes were being made as the Kiev. Zeiss reorganized in Stuttgart and in 1950 started producing the Contax IIa and IIIa, both slightly smaller and mechanically more reliable versions of the prewar models. About the same time Nikon started producing the S series RF cameras, combining the features of both Leica and Contax. Since all basic patents had expired, Nikon could take the best of each mark and used Leica internal mechanisms with a Contax like rangefinder and bayonet mount. These were the cameras that photojournalists "discovered" during the Korean war and established the quality reputation of the Japanese photographic industry. Canon stayed closer to the Leica model and released a whole series of Canons, culminating in the high tech Canon 7s in 1968. All Canons featured the Leica screw mount and full lens interchangability with screw mount Leicas. Some Canons also had lever wind, multi-frame viewfinders, automatic parallax correction, titanium shutter blinds, and built in exposure meters. During most of this time, Leica stayed with its pre-war Leica III model, updated by now to the Leica IIIf (the Leica IIIg was a transitional camera). In comparison to the Japanese cameras, particularly the Nikon, Leicas were living antiques.

LarryZ

From Rangefinder Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001
From: Winfried Buechsenschuetz [email protected]
Subject: RE: Contax IIa / Kiev

In the latest edition of the german camera collectors' magazine "Photo-deal" (despite its english title, it's in german only) there is an article about the end of Contax production in Jena. Around 1948/49, almost all existing tools, machines and re-drawn drawings (the originals were caught by the US army but the 80 000+ drawings never reached their destination), a couple of re-manufactured samples and manufacturing manuals were transferred to the Soviet Union, while Zeiss-Ikon in Stuttgart continued to manufacture the II/IIa and later the III/IIIa. They even supplied east german Zeiss with light meters! The soviets never redesigned the "original" II/IIIa design. They made an "improved" version, the Kiev5, which is pretty rare. Basically, it's an updated design of the IIa, with a giant lightmeter window.

Winfried

From Leica Mailing List; From: John Collier [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] R lenses on M cameras

There are several sources for the R lens to M bayonet adapter.

The first source was Leica itself who developed a movie camera (Leicina Special Super 8) that used a M bayonet mount and a series of adapters to mount various other lenses. These adapters can be used on M cameras as well.

22233 for Minolta lenses
22232 for M42 lenses
22230 for Arriflex lenses
22228 for Leicaflex lenses

It seems to me there was a C mount adapter to but I cannot locate the part no. Unfortunately the 22228 adapter has achieved collector status (though the others do not seem to have!?) and usually is listed for about $300US to $400US

The second source is the various after market adapter manufacturers of which Novoflex is probably the most well known:

http://www.novoflex.com/html/products.htm

John Collier

> From: Pablo Kolodny [email protected]
>
> Sometime ago I saw an adapter to have R lenses onto M bodies.
> It sounded to me as Angenieux made...
>
> I'll appreciate any comments on that.
> I'd be trying to work with a 19 mm or 21mm R lenses on one of my M6 or M2
> bodies.
> I assume that speaking on wide angle lenses I would not feel worried  about
> focusing...

From Minolta Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001
From: "Globtroter" [email protected]
Subject: Overall Quality of Minolta Lenses (long)

Hi, Robert and All!

If I could add something to that.

First - there's no such a thing like "overall quality", you should always take the individual, the particular lens, at least overall quality says nothing for me,

Second - which magazines have you been reading (?), and what kind of tests(?) or there were only general "impression" of the authors in the magazines,

Third - Did you take the marketing side of these articles into your consideration?

Now, what? Minolta probably has the worst marketing among all big others in the market but IT DOES'NT MEAN THAT ITS LENSES ARE WORSE THAN THE OTHERS.

How often have you seen any tests of Leica lenses? - I personally almost don't see them at all. Leica rarely agrees to put its lenses side by side with others. Does it mean that Leica lenses are bad overall - NO.

In its R series, Leica has some lenses which originated from Minolta:

Rokkor MC 16/2,8;
Rokkor MC 24/2,8;
Rokkor 500/8;
Minolta MD 35-70/3,5;
Minolta MD 75-200/4,5;
Minolta MD 70-210/4;
and others.

Try the following lenses in your works and nobody will be able to differentiate your results from the best ones:

Rokkor MD 17/4
Rokkor MC NL 21/2,8;
Rokkor MD 20/2,8;
Rokkor MC 24/2,8;
Rokkor MD 28/2;
Rokkor MC 35/1,8;
Rokkor MC 35/2,8;
Rokkor MD 50/1,4;
Rokkor MC 58/1,2;
Minolta MD 35-70/3,5;
Minolta MD 75-200/4,5;
Minolta MD 24-35/3,5;
Minolta MD 70-210/4;
Minolta MD 85/1,7;
Minolta macro MD 100/3,5;
Minolta MD 100/2,5;
Minolta MD 135/2,8;
Minolta MD 200/2,8 (it's like macro);
Minolta 300/MC;
Minolta 500/8.

I tried them all and came to one opinion - they are among the best.

How many of them did you try, how many slides or prints did you do with them?

And finally, I've got one article in British Amateur Photographer which is called "Portrait Eight", it's a test of the best 8 portraits lenses: Minolta, Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Tamron, Pentax, Sigma and one I don't remember. According to that test Minolta AF 85/1,4 won before Nikon 105/2 and Olympus 100/2. BUT THE AUTHOR OF THE TEST SAID IN THE TEKST: "I DON'T LIKE MINOLTA SO NIKON IS WINNING".

Do you want the a scan of the test? Maybe we all are given such kind of "tests".

Marketing, marketing and marketing that's what is often winning not the quality of lenses IMHO.

Best photos!

Zbigniew, Poland

From: [email protected] (EDGY01)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 09 Jun 2001
Subject: Re: Leica...

As a long time Nikon shooter (30 years) I had infrequently wondered about the Leica M series and why they were popular with some of the staff photographers. Most of the photographers shot with Nikons, but a couple used Leica. Did I see a difference in their work? I can't say that I did.

I finally broke down and bought a new M6 recently and have to say that I wonder what I missed by NOT buying an M3 or M4 years ago,--today's M6 is a beautifully assembled camera, but the lenses...wow! It's amazing how small you can make a 35mm f/2 lens when you stick it on a rangefinder body and don't have to shoot through a mirror box. It really has brought me back to thinking that this is why 35mm has been such a phenomenally successful format,--compactness. The M6 with the 35mm f/2 lens is tiny. That lens takes a 39mm filter! I put filters that small on the BACK of my Nikon lenses. When I discovered that my F5 with data back and 17-35mm lens (which I really do like) were actually LARGER than my Hasselblad Super Wide, I finally realized that I was dragging a LOT of stuff around.

The M6 makes me THINK again. This is always good. It makes me assess the lighting in a given area as I walk up, and automatically dial it in,--I confirm it just before I shoot and am already back up to speed on my EV estimates,--frequently within a half an f/stop of the right one. The M6 is SLOW for me right now,--because I'm out of practice. The F5 is a tremendous camera for doing things in a hurry, but I like taking my time now and thinking before shooting away. The M6 forces me to think more. This is good. Optics. I can't say that Leica lenses are better than Japanese optics,--I haven't tested enough to say for sure, and I haven' gone head to head yet to see. But, the lenses are little works of art. They're tiny, and the precision is what I imagine is keeping the Leica shooters coming back year after year with the Leica.

It's unfortunate that there appears to be a lot of jealousy in the photography business and hobby about equipment. I know that this is the EQUIPMENT newsgroup so I guess that's where we seem to concentrate our focus, but I know everyone one of you probably takes really great pictures with what you're handed, and know inside that it's the nut BEHIND the camera that is the most significant element. I can assure you that I'm equally capable of taking TERRIBLE pictures with my Leica as I am my Nikons or my Hasselblad. I try to match the gear to my assigment, but sometimes I don't. I do the best I can with the other element of photography we all have,--that we didn't have to buy,--that part about 30mm to 60mm BEHIND the viewfinder.

I love to shoot, irrespective of the equipment!

Dan Lindsay
Santa Barbara, Ca

From: [email protected] (McEowen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 09 Jun 2001
Subject: Re: Leica...Leica technical???

1- Why is the Leica M-6 a better performer in low light conditions?

With an SLR you are actually looking at an image projected onto a ground glass focusing screen. While this system has many advantages, in low light situations you are limited by your ability to discern the sharpness of the image. With an SLR the inherent depth of field of wide angle lenses actually works against you because you can't tell what's really the point of sharpest focus and what is the effect of depth of field. WIth a rangefinder you aren't viewing through the taking lense but rather a focusing device. While this approach offers many disadvantages it has one great advantage: it is very precise with short focal length lenses. It is easy to discern when the two images of the rangefinder device are lined up. So even in situations so dark you couldn't accurately focus on a ground glass you can use the rangefinder device quite effectively. BTW, older (read non-AF) SLR cameras often featured simple split image focusing aids. The rangefinder is like that but with a much more effective device.

Also, the lack of a mirror mechanism makes the rangefinder well suited for low light photography because you can generally hand-hold the camera at one or two slower shutter speeds because of the reduced vibration.

and why would it have better light metering that advanced SLRs?

It isn't. By comparison to the high-tech AF SLR cameras on the market today the Leica M6 meter is quite crude -- though quite effective in the hands of someone comfortable with using it.

2- I understood the quiter part since there is no mirror flip... But why does the Leica M-6 have a faster autofocus than most advanced SLRs what exactly is pre-focus?

The Leica M-6 is not an autofocus camera. Maybe you misunderstood something that was written.

3- One more question, I understood how the Leica rangefinders correct the parallax problem, but what still puzzles me is that you have a built in viewfinder, so what happenes when you change lenses or when you are using a zoom, not sure if Leica has zooms, is this also corrected by moving lines in the viewfinder?

Rangefinders of the type of the Leica M camera (Nikon, Canon and Contax used to offer them) project a frameline in the viewing window to show you the image area with different lenses. Leica does not offer a zoom but with the various Leica cameras you are presented at different times with frame lines for 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 75mm, 90mm and 135mm lenses. In some cases more than one set of lines is shown at the same time. These lines change as you change lenses.

By contrast, modern Contax viewfinder/AF focusing cameras have a zoom viewfinder that actually increases magnification as you change lenses. Contax offers a zoom and their viewfinder works with it.

I suggest you are ready to go to a good camera store and handle some cameras of this type. It may or may not be for you. For many people rangefinders make no sense at all . . .

A couple of other rangefinder characteristics to consider:

* There is slightly less delay with a rangefinder shutter (because of the lack of mirror mechanism) and some photographers believe this aids in capturing "the moment."

* Many photographers like the sensation of looking THROUGH the viewfinder of a rangefinder rather than AT the projected image of an SLR. It's hard to explain but it seems to keep the photographer better connected with the scene. You've probably heard how war photographers report feeling isolated, detached and somehow safe while they're shooting. THat's probably a function of the projected image/mirror system of the SLR. Using the Leica is more like using the box camera you may have used as a kid. You don't ever (mentally) leave the scene when you use a rangefiner.

If you've used both an SLR and a point and shoot camera you've already experienced the difference. Often people react favorably when making the swithf from P&S to SLR because the SLR viewfinder image seems so impressive. But for some of us, there's a trade-off in the intimacy you lose with the SLR. (As an aside, the modern Contax uses a porro-prism system that is really more like an SLR than a Leica M in that you don't look directly through the viewfinder but rather at an image that reflects off a series of mirrors. This is one of the things I didn't like about the Contax G2 I owned.)

* Because you look through a simple viewfinder everything appears sharp. That's a disadvantage when you're trying to previsualize depth of field but is an advantage when using zone focus techniques. If you are setting your focus by placing as much of the anticipated focus range within the confines of depth of field marked on your lens scale it helps to NOT see the projected image. Chances are things will appear out of focus with an SLR so you'll be tempted to change the settings. With a rangefinder/viewfinder you just shoot. That probably didn't make sense. Maybe someone else can explain it better.

* Because there is no mirror black-out at the moment of exposure, you see "the moment." You can also see your flash fire if you're using flash.

Again, rangefinders are not for everybody. I use both an SLR system and a rangefinder system. My SLR system is the general purpose/jack of all trades system while the rangefinder is reserved for up-close-and-personal people photography (or travel photography because of it's compactness).

Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2001
From: "Bud Cook" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica...

You don't buy Leicas as an investment per se but you should recognize that they will cost you less to own over the years than almost any other camera/lens.

It's back to the question of whether it's wiser to considering only what something costs to buy or what something costs to own.

Every last Leitz/Leica product I've owned has appreciated in value. The opposite has been true with most of the other photo gear that I've owned.

--
Bud Cook

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 02 Jul 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Amazon & B&N

...

Well, try searching for either of the following:

Marc James Small and Charles M Barringer, The Zeiss Ikon Compendium, (also called Barringer and Small, The Zeiss Compendium, depending on whether you look at the cover or the title page!). Hove Collectors Books, 1995. ISBN 1 874707 24 3.

Marc James Small, Non-Leitz Leica Thread-Mount Lenses: A 39mm Diversity. H�cklehoven, Germany: Rita Wittig, 1997. ISBN: 3-930359-47-2.

Just for starters, mind you!

Petra Kellers stocks both.

Marc

[email protected]

Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2001
From: "Sean Golden" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: leica prod'n stats - was Re: Leica...

"Mxsmanic" [email protected] wrote

> They'll still have customers like me, who buy Leica because of the glass
> and the build quality.  If I wanted a cheap clone, I never would have
> bothered with Leica in the first place.  For some people, of course, the
> lowest price is all that matters, and Leica never had their business,
> anyway.

I guess it falls down that way. Either you buy a ridiculously expensive Leica or "the lowest price is all that matters." That's why when you go to the camera store you see only Leicas in glass cases resting on velvet, next to cardboard cameras with plastic lenses. Becuase there is no in between, is there?

Or maybe some of us are able to balance the value of something based on its utility vs its cost. For the vast majority of human beings the cost/benefit ratio of a Leica just doesn't make sense. Because even if the dubious claims of Leica owners of "10 to 15% better image quality" are true, the reasonable position of most people is that for 90% of the capability of the best on the market, 25% of the cost isn't such a bad deal.

That doesn't make us all cheap or ignorant bastards. It makes us responsible purchasing adults who don't have money to burn, and who think that $1,750 not spent on that last dubious 10% of quality is not as important as that year of college tuition.

This is precisely the attitude that gives Leica owners a bad name. Thanks for displaying it for us.

Now to really rub it in. The claims of 10 to 15% improvement in Image quality are pure rubbish in the first place. Proven to be so many, many times.

-sdg

Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001
From: "Sean Golden" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The one and only Leica Addict

An acquaintance of mine had a Leica manual camera. I had a Nikon FE2. We compared the cameras very critically, including the operation of the camera (how does it feel to advance the film, to change settings, etc..) The materials used in construction (virtually identical) photos taken, his with a Zeiss lens, me with a Nikkor 50mm lens. His camera and lens cost him well over $2,000. Mine cost just over $250. We compared the results.

We were unable to determine any difference in quality whatsoever. Neither were any others who were given photos from each camera to compare.

Of course this is just one example, and it is clear that we were not discriminating enough to judge the results adequately for those purists who believe their Leica is worth the price of several Nikon FE2s. Personally I'd spend the extra money on lenses if I was arguing image quality...

For me, I was mostly very impressed with the quality of both cameras.

I have since sold my FE2 and purchased an older FM2N. I would have made the same comparisons with this camera.

I love hearing Leica owners say their photos are comparable in quality to a medium format camera. Really, I do love it. It is always entertaining and gives me a refreshing break from considering serious issues like middle east terrorism.

Virtually any mid-range medium format camera will outperform any 35mm camera, and anyone who actually analyzes the results will admit it. Many medium format cameras cost much less than a Leica. If the true goal is image quality, then spend the extra money on the larger negative. You'll get a lot more bang for the buck.

And you'll save enough money for much better glass, which is the real source of image quality anyway....

Leica.... Ferrarri... Rolex....

I love it.

-sdg

"Heinz Richter" [email protected] wrote

> >"they're nothing special except for the way that they're built". He  then
> >explained that the quality of Leica is found in the higher standard of
> >materials used in their construction. He claimed that the little cogs  and
> >gears in a Leica just don't wear out the way they eventually do in  other
> >cameras.
>
> He apparently is not aware of the fact that Leica also uses much tighter
> tolerances in the manufacture and assembly of their cameras and lenses than
> most other camera manufacturers.
> Heinz
> GMP  Photography
> http://www.goldmem.com
> FOTOgraphicART
> http://hometown.aol.com/fotogrart/myhomepage/business.html
> GMB Custom Black & White Lab
> http://hometown.aol.com/gmbbwlab/myhomepage/business.html

From Russian Camera Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: bulgarian dealer

> From: [email protected]
> Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 
> Subject: [russiancamera] Re: bulgarian dealer
>
> Does anyone realize how nuts this all is?  Unless a critical facility
> develops to distinguish fake from real, fakes will continue to
> multiply to meet the market demand.  What I would like to see is more
> skepticism on these pages not less.

Actually, I like collecting the fakes. I can't afford to collect real Leicas, but fake ones are well within my means.

I have a fake Canon point and shoot made from a LOMO by some enterprising soul (who even marked "Made in Japan" on the back, and several fake Leicas. They're fun!

Bob

Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000
From: [email protected] (Bob Hickey)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Old Minoltas vs. New: which to buy?

I knew my patience would be rewarded. $140 should get you 2 maybe 3 SRTs if you shop carefully.

XG series are also an excellent buy and a little smaller it the bargain. I have an XG-SE which comes with a factory Acute-Matte screen, it really is bright. I find it annoying that the meter only works on auto on these though. But it's easy to get used to.

And the XE series were built when Minolta and Leica were making believe they were partners, and uses parts common to both. But they tend to be a few bucks more, at least from what I see at the shows.

But if it was me, I'd probably look for a made in Japan X-370. Nice camera until they made it in China, where it mysteriously turned to plastic.

Bob Hickey

From Rangefinder Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Interesting item on eBay web site item#1253881582: model Fed Chinese camera,leather

The camera in question is a Dalai, or Popular. These were made in China circa 1956 and are copies of Leica II. The Dalai Precision Machine Shop in Beijing made photo equipment at least as far back as 1949. Dalai is said to be a Chinese attempt at the English word Darling. This is said to be the rarest Chinese Leica copy. The same factory, in recent years, has made the Great Wall line of medium format SLR cameras, and in the past has made copies of Rollei TLR and other cameras.

The one on eBay is most likely fake, since only about ten were ever built and only one of them is accounted for today.

Bob

From Rangefinder Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kiev-4 Handling/Usability?

Steve,......I have used Zorkis, Feds, and Kievs. To me, the Kievs are the best. The range-finder is the best of all the russian cameras. The shutter on my Kiev 4m is within 10%from top to bottom. Most of the lenses cost me about half what I paid for the Leica screw mount lenses. The infinity release is only for the normal lens which I never use anyway. If you have a 35mm and an 85mm lens, you are all set. Of all the Kievs, the nicest ones are the 3a's of the 50's. If I could fit a built in take-up spool like in my Kiev 4m, this would make a really neat camera.

Have a nice day,.....Ray

[Ed. note: note reference to Mr. Small's book on LTM 39mm lenses...!]
From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2001
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT Stenheil Culminar

Phil Swango wrote:

>While looking through some used Rollei gear at a local shop my eyes
>wandered over to the Leica shelf and fell upon an 85mm f/2.8 Steinheil
>Culminar in LTM.  It was in very good shape -- clean glass, smooth  focusing
>-- so I went for it, thinking it might be a good cheap portrait lens.  I
>snapped it onto my M6 (with M-adapter) and shot a roll of Sensia.  I was
>pretty amazed at the results -- this lens is a fine performer, easily  equal
>to my long-focus Elmars and Hektors of the same vintage (1950s).  I'm a
>little surprised because when I was a LTM user I always avoided the
>Steinheils, thinking they were somehow second or third tier products.   Does
>anyone know the formula for the Culminar?  Is it a Tessar-type?  I really
>like it.  Also, did I mention that it was cheap?

{sigh} You need three references:

This lens is discussed, a bit briefly, in that magnificent tome, NON-LEITZ LEICA THREAD-MOUNT LENSES: A 39mm DIVERSITY, by one Marc James Small, available from Petra Kellers. The lens is discussed optically in Kingslake's HISTORY OF THE PHOTOGRAPHIC LENS as being a Tessar derivative with the cemented doublet in front and the separated elements to the aft, while this specific version of the Culminar is confirmed in Wright and Wilkinson's magisterial A LENS COLLECTOR'S VADE MECUM CD-ROM as having this exact arrangement.

All of the Steinheil LTM lenses are pretty damned good performers. I'm sorry now I sold mine.

Marc
[email protected]

Date: 07 Jul 2001
From: [email protected] (Teresa299)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: why not a blind test? Leica/Lipphardt/long reply

Hi Mike,

I too have an SLR and I think it does a great job for pretty much everything. It does things my leica m can't. I have a great macro, portrait, wide and what I call a special bokeh lens (something I think minolta can excel in) that serve me very, very well.

My Leica connection started innocently enough. I was with a friend, got to use her Leica and was intrigued with the size, weight, manual and quietness of the system. I can't honesty say why I was intrigued...I'm no camera snob, hell, I use probably one of the most maligned camera systems around--Minolta! And it wasn't that Leica M was the lightest camera I've ever held and used...it wasn't. Elphs and some of the new lightweight zoom cameras fit in, er, much smaller places than the M. But for me, the smaller camera's like elphs and the like are too light...the M just felt right, weight wise, balance wise and lastly the camera controls. (Camera controls are important to me--another reason why I've been with Minolta, because to me they are laid out so logically and easy. Manual control is an easy switch, with a rotating knob on the front and back, you can dial in total control in a second.)

Anyway, I made a plunge and got a Leica. A user M and 35/2 summicron (pre-asph). The user designations meant that everything worked but wasn't ridiculously expensive as some "collectible." Was it still expensive? Yup. But I figured it this way, before making the plunge...I knew I'd get back most, if not all of my money if I decided to dump the system. I knew that unless I dropped the camera on the train tracks and it got rolled, that I'd have this camera the rest of my life. I figure I got another 20-35 years to go (maybe more with genetic engineering and eventual cropping of body parts), so factored into my lifespan the cost of the leica worked out to be $60 a year at the most.

Has the Leica given me better pictures? It depends on what you mean by better pictures. Do you mean technically better? Artistically better? Let's say this... A minolta 85 1.4 or 135 STF gives you something that a quantray 28-400 4.5-6.8 can't. Sure, you can create art using any lens, but you might not be able to get what's in your minds eye if you don't have the right tools. A fast portrait lens can give you a shallow DOF that a 6.8 can't and the 135 STF can blur out the backround in a way that's very pleasing. In the sense that I want to take a shot of, let's say a nude, using these techniques,...my particular minolta lenses let's me take, subjectively better pictures. again, does that mean that the only "better" pictures can be obtained with my minolta glass? No. But this particular glass (technical ability) allows me to explore and express in ways that I want. In this way, my minolta gear gives me "better" pictures.

And what of Leica glass? Well, every system has it's winner glass and every system it's dogs. Some folks analyze glass using every scientific piece of equipment known to mankind, others go the more subjective route. I fall into the latter category. I'm a big fan of bokeh, something that many folks don't even agree exists. So be it...but for me, I know it, when I see it. I see it in the Minolta glass I own and god knows I see it in my Leica glass. I see it in other folks Leica glass. From 21mm to 90mm there is some amazing stuff there to capture images with.

What having my Leica has meant is that I take my camera with me now--everywhere. It's light enough that it's not a burden to carry with me in my purse. And constantly having the manual beast is in a way like going on some sort of mediatative retreat...it allows/forces you to constantly consider shots, composition, and because it's only manual, it forces you to deal with exposure--always. I suppose if I was a guy with a big set of paws, carrying around an slr would not be such a big deal, but for me, even though the minolta is not a particularly heavy or bulky beast, I was never able to always carry it with me. On the other hand, the Leica is no big deal to have as a constant companion. It's weight and size are such that it's really second nature to have with me, and it is quiet and strangely unobtrusive enough to get all sorts of shots (candids, street-urban landscape) that I didn't get before--using my slr.

So does my Leica M allow me to get better pictures? A subjective question and thus, answer are in order. I know there is a technical component to photography--that's why photodo tests are constantly quoted here and the continual bickering over whose camera system is technologically better or more advanced. I think if one reads this newsgroup too much you forget that there's an artistic side to photography too. And since I tend to shoot more "arty" kind of subject matter, rather than sports reportage I suppose I can take this kind of what some might call, a lazy approach to this technical aspect.

But I look at the question this way--I shoot photos because I feel compelled to. Photography allows me to express myself in a way I can't do verbally or through writing. For me, photography is about art...art in the largest sense. Because I have my art tools with me all the time now, I am much more aware of my"art," and thus I think I've grown because of it. I think in this way, my Leica has quietly changed how I shoot and thus in a way, how I communicate. Maybe this is why some Leica folks get all mystical over their attachment to their equipment...because it's affected something they care about.

I can't say if my photography is "technically" better with a Leica. To be honest, I'm not even sure if I care. What makes a "better" photo is about so many things- composition, subject matter, technique, impact, emotion...things that can't really be measured by a scientific instrument or even double blind tests.

All I can say is that having this "tool" that can so exquisitely capture the images of the world around me, packaged in a format that has allowed me to practice my art constantly has been revolutionary for me. In many ways the M has become my "third eye" and thus has really changed how I perceive and thus how I shoot. In this way, I think I can say the Leica M system has really helped me get better pictures, ironically whether I'm using the M system now or not.

Mike wrote:

You will make note of the fact that I never said I wouldn't like to own a Leica. In fact, I would. More precisely, I'd like to be able to afford one :) I can see times when it would be a very useful tool. But my SLR does the job well enough.

I suspect that one day I just might find the money and buy a leica system. But I am not going to fool myself into thinking it's to get better pictures. I'll be getting it to obtain some of the advantages of a rangefinder system, and, well, just to have a Leica. Nothing wrong with that, is there? :)

Mike

From Russian Camera List:
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2001
From: "J-2" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kiev 4m Lens quality

Thom

The 35mm and 85mm Jupiters are really sharp. The 35mm has excellent contrast and resolution although it exhibits some field curvature not normally seen in the current range of 35mm lenses. The 85 mm Jupiter can make the 85 /2 Nikkor pale, IMO :).

Observations are based on subjective observations (= which has more snap, contrast, better'bokeh', etc). Objective comparisons based on resolution figures and the like may tell something else, but then again, how many often have you seen photographers display lens resolution figures?:)

Jay

...

Date: 17 Jul 2001
From: [email protected] (SAPasap)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: M6 or Bessa R? - that's the question

dilbertdroid says:

>>You are really pushing it when you use the word
>>f you can't load a Leica easily, you aren't trying.
>>blah blah blah

Is it me, or is it the mark of certain Yahoos to state mere inexperienced opinion as though it were an ironclad legal finding?

As mentioned, the Bessa R's lenses are extremely fine performers-- and please consult the many reviews around that will state the same-- but be gentle with the bod.

As an aside, I've noticed a position that's been going around for some time, as promoted by fan magazines, and that's to promote whatever is perceived to be the best at all costs.

This battlecry has been taken up by many photo fans. But it's not an engineering position, and its not a business position. Instead, it's an emotional opinion (don't know another way to put it, and not that an emotional opinion is at all a bad one).

Because ignored in an emotional approach is the price/benefit ratio. From a practical standpoint, is it worth paying 3 times the cost for something whose result is indistinguishable?

The original poster who asked that question will make his own decision, as will we all.

But unless you are carefully metering and using a tripod at all times, I'd submit that for traditional what-we-think-of-as-rangefinder-shooting, we are not using as much performance potential as our lenses are capable of.

A quick lift to the eye and a shutter release at 1/60 f/2.8 for a furtive street shot, for example, and we'd probably all be hard-pressed to distinguish one brand from another.

To the original poster, I'd guess that if he is really torn, then other factors come into play, such as money. Buy the cheapie, see how you like it, sell it in a year if you want. Or if your heart is really already set on the more expensive one, why ask?

Date: 18 Jul 2001
From: [email protected] (travglen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: M6 or Bessa R? - that's the question

The most knowlegeable Leica pundit I know, Erwin Puts, calls the Voightlander lenses, "Astonishing value for the money." He also rates the Voigtlander Nokton 50mm/f1.5 as better than the Summilux-M, but below the Summilux-R. You don't develop and print, do you? I only guess that because the qualities you seem to like in a lens are at the bottom of an experienced b&w printer's list. For instance, separation of complex tonalities (b&w) is at the top of mine. Color, whether negative or positive, is the worst medium for judging lens characteristics. You need to spend more time in the darkroom developing craft.

Date: 09 Jun 2001
From: [email protected] (EDGY01)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica M vs R

"...Compare primes to primes and most people cannot tell the difference between photos taken with a good Nikkor prime lens and one taken by a Leica lens. Enough already! Get a life!..."

I can't agree more. I use many systems to include Canon, Nikon, Hasselblad and Leitz/Leica. I would have a difficult time telling one shot from another because of the optics. So many other variables can enter the picture to spoil an image.

Dan Lindsay
Santa Barbara, Ca

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001
From: Tony Polson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica...Leica technical???

[email protected] (McEowen) wrote:

> >As does Cosina in the form of the Voigtlander Bessa T (M-mount) or
> >Bessa R (M39 mount)
>
> Sorry, but I don't consider a screw-mount lens system to be practical. I  gave
> that up when I sold my Ricoh Singlex in 1979.

Hi Bob,

That's true, but many people seem to be buying accessory L39 to Leica M bayonet adapters in order to use the excellent Voigtl�nder lenses on Leica and Minolta M mount cameras.

> As for the T body, you can't
> really view that as a practical alternative with it's seperate  viewfinder
> system. Leica moved beyond that idea in the early 50s . . .

There is an M-mount rangefinder-in-viewfinder Voigtl�nder under development and Voigtl�nder lenses will soon be available in M mount as well as L39. The new 28mm Voigtl�nder lens is the first to be available in M mount.

The future for Voigtl�nder looks to be closely wedded to the M mount.

Best regards,

--
Tony Polson

Date: 11 Jun 2001
From: [email protected] (McEowen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica...Leica technical???

>That's true, but many people seem to be buying accessory L39 to Leica M
>bayonet adapters in order to use the excellent Voigtl�nder lenses on
>Leica and Minolta M mount cameras.

Yep, I've got the 15mm Cosina. The mount adapter comes off with the lenses, though -- effectively turning it into a M-mount lens.

 >The future for Voigtl�nder looks to be closely wedded to the M
mount. 

That's a wise marketing decision. Apparently the patent on the M-mount expired a year or so ago.

Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2001
From: "Mxsmanic" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica...

"McEowen" [email protected] wrote

> BS! Without getting into the Leica is better
> argument. You can buy the best 24mm, 28mm, 35mm,
> 50mm, 85mm or 135mm Nikkor lens for a few hundred
> bucks each.  Any of the Leica lenses will run
> well over a thousand.

The last increment of optical and build quality is also the most expensive increment. The last ten percent of quality usually costs just as much as the first 90% did.

> I paid $1,500 for the Leica lens and finder.
> THe Nikkor cost around $400. Is the difference
> "worth it?" Hell no, if you just look at things
> like sharpness and contrast -- especially not
> if you print your images on newsprint like I do.

Agreed. But you paid three times as much for an extra ten percent or so in quality. In just about any other domain, you'd have to do the same. The last little bit always costs a fortune, and it isn't just gravy for the manufacturer.

Date: 13 Jun 2001
From: [email protected] (Chris Mullin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Voigtlander / Cosina RF lenses

[email protected] (Fred Sun) wrote

{snip}

Question is, how

> good is good? Is the incremental quality of Leica optics over V/C
> worth the extra dinero?

Two questions-- the answers should help you make up your mind:

1) Do you have a sturdy tripod? 2) Do you *almost always* use it?

Especially with a 35mm rangefinder outfit, I strongly suspect the answer to questions 2 (at least!) is "no." But if you shoot your RF cameras handheld with Voigtlander lenses and Leitz lenses...

The traditional rule of thumb is that you can shoot a focal length that about equals the reciprocal of the shutter speed (a 50mm lens at 1/50 or 1/60; a 100mm lens at 1/100, etc.) And, if you're careful and not too shaky you can do that, and your pictures will look prety good. But most people, if they are seriously interested in *maximum* sharpness, will find they just do not achieve that unless they put their camera on a tripod. And most people who use rangefinder gear in the 35-90mm range are not using their cameras on tripods.

--Chris [email protected]

[Ed. note: is "Leica Glow" all wet? ;-) ]
From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2001
From: Johnny Deadman [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] how to achieve the Leica 'glow' with modern lenses

I discovered this quite by accident

I share it freely

get rained on

some water (lots actually) on the front element gives you a classic 'glow'

very nice

if you like that kind of thing

also works with 'off-brand' lenses

my FD-mount sigma 24mm looks just like a vintage summilux 35!

- --
John Brownlow
http://www.pinkheadedbug.com

Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001
From: "Jeffery S. Harrison" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: leica prod'n stats - was Re: Leica...

{snip}

> > With the F5 you get not only a solid, dependable and
> > nearly flawless mechanical body, you get 30 years of
> > technology which makes a camera bag full of gear you
> > need with the M-6 virtually unnecessary.
>
> I don't need a bag of gear with an M6; I just need a few rolls of film.
> With the F5, same thing: I just need a few rolls of film.

I don't own any Leica's and probably never will but you do need a whole bag full of equipment with that all manual Leica if you want all the features (assuming that a motor drive is even available for the Leica) that you get on the F5 body.

{snip}

>debate so far.  Compare your completely manual Leica
>with a completely manual Nikon, like the FM2N, that 
> is a "fair" comparison.
> No.  The Leica is built better than a Nikon manual body.  That's part of
> what you pay for.

Comparing an all manual Nikon to an all manual Leica sounds like an appropriate comparison to me. You've already argued that when using the best Nikon glass on the F5 you get as good an image as you do from the Leica M6.

Now you're saying that a Nikon manual body (your sentence implies ANY Nikon manual body) isn't built as well as the Leica. I can't comment on it's durability since I've only owned it for a little over a year now but I can comment on its fit and finish. From my experience the FM2n's fit and finish is every bit as good as that of the F5, F100 and F3HP. I've owned a F3HP for 7 years now (just recently bought a second one) and it has never given me any problems, ever. When I use 35mm on jobs it's usually the F3's that I take instead of the F5 or F100.

> As examples, on an F5 with AF-S zooms, there is a _very_ tiny amount of
> play between the lens and the body.  With an M6, there is none--they are
> practically welded together.  The results are the same for both cameras,
> but you pay for different details, as I've said.

After reading this post I decided to go do some testing before I responded (which is why I'm only just writing this). I tested the fit of all of my Nikon lenses on all of my Nikon bodies, specifically looking at the amount of play each lens/body exhibited. What I found was that for any given lens there was NO DIFFERENCE in the amount of play it had on ANY of my bodies which includes the F5, F100, F3HP and the FM2n. The best fit (least amount of play) came from my AI and AIS lenses. Second best was the AF lenses and the AF-S lenses came in third with the most play (roughly twice as muxh play as the AI & AIS lenses exhibited). None of these had what I would call a lot of play but it was there none the less. While I was at it I checked the lens/body fit of my other cameras. The Mamiya 7 II and Mamiya 6 MF (the only other bayonet mount lenses I own) had absoulutely ZERO play when mounted to the body. Likewise there was no play when any of my lenses were attached to my RZ's but they are not bayonet mount. So would you like to tell me again what exactly is inferior about the fit and finish of "a Nikon manual body" when compared to a Nikon F5?

{snip}

> I can't blame you, since your arguments are worthless when applied to
> the camera/lens combination.  I, however, have been commenting on the

Which was exactly his point in the first place. Had you quoted him out of context that would have been obvious.

{snip}

As I said in several posts the difference in cost between a Leica M6 and Nikon FM2N could be spent on good lenses and you get a much better picture taking machine. Once you have the best lenses, you can spend the rest of the money on the body of your choice. And yet, you refuse to admit the FM2n is worthy of the comparison. What is so terrible about a $500 (B&H, black body, USA) FM2n comparing favorably to a $1930 (B&H, USA) F5 and thus (by your own arguments) a Leica M6? Just why do you hate the all manual FM2n so much?

> > A modern SLR does things a compact camera can't do,
> > so comparing a Nikon F5 with a disposable camera isn't
> > a reasonable comparison.

A modern SLR does more than an all manual Leica too.

> There is more than just a feature set to consider.

Since you're already assuming the best possible lenses for both systems what else besides feature set is there to consider? Don't even bother saying build quality because you've already told us that the Nikon is nearly as good in that respect as the Leica M6.

{snip}

> So beyond that, you can pay for features (and buy an F5) or build
> quality (and buy a M6).

Or opt for not getting the features and getting a all manual SLR body with nearly (by your definition) the same build quality for only $500.

{snip}

> You may recall that a Hasselblad is a medium-format camera, and a Leica > M is a 35mm camera. The difference in quality arises from the > difference in format.

Wasn't it you who was recently telling us how modern 35mm cameras using modern film deliver an image EQUAL in quality to that of medium format? Don't bother denying it because you know that it was.

{snip}

Jeffery S. Harrison

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001
From: "Sean Golden" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The one and only Leica Addict

Other than journalists, for whom it has already been posted many times that image quality is not the highest priority, what other pros use Leicas regularly?

I'll give you the journalists who might use Leica because it is compact, but so is a Nikon FM2N, and I would still bet that more journalists use Canon and Nikon than Leica ANYWAY, so unless you are arguing that more pros use Leicas, then you don't have a point here.

Besides, there have been several other posts saying that these journalists are precisely the group moving to digital anyway, so that just brings up a whole other issue where Leica doesn't excel.

-sdg

...

Date: 25 Jun 2001
From: [email protected] (McEowen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The one and only Leica Addict II

>Yes it does, but it is limited. Most rangefinder owners would also have
>need for an
>SLR as well.

That's something I have stated in nearly every post I make advocating the Leica M. Again, it is a specialized camera. It does not do everything. Some things it does it does not do particularly well. Some things it does, it does amazingly well. It is certainly not for everyone and NO ONE should even think about it until they are ready.

That's what's so frustrating about all the Leica bashing posts -- they are written by people who don't need a Leica, don't understand a Leica and aren't ready for one but yet for some reason are offended by their very existance. When you're ready, you're ready. Until then, just ignore them . . .

Date: 24 Jun 2001
From: Paul Rubin [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: why not a blind test? Re: The one and only Leica Addict

[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) writes:

> that sounds like an interesting experiment to me ;-) Why not a blind  test
> via mail? (the web photos aren't good enough to provide good test,  yes?):
>
> can somebody with both a Leica M series body/lenses and 35mm SLR
> lenses/body make a series of side by side exposures on a tripod, same
> slide film (slow, to say 100 ASA/ISO), same f/stops and care in focusing
> same subject, same lighting, same processing etc.

This would test some attributes of the Leica but not the important ones.

The more interesting test is to give a photographer a Spotmatic with a 50/1.4 Takumar and have him/her do some candid photography, say at an indoor public event. Then do some further photography at the same event with an M6 and 50/1.4 Summilux. Then see which set of pictures is more interesting in terms of the compositions, expressions that are captured, and so forth. Unfortunately it's hard to make this as scientific as the tripod test.

Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2001
From: greg [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The one and only Leica Addict II

The problem with rangefinders is that they are just too limiting in their abilities. They work best for wide angle and OK for anything up to about 90mm. You have no macro, PC, zoom or telephoto lenses. Don't doubt Leica is a quality camera but boy do they ever cost a lot of coin. If you want a highly versatile all manual 35mm system I'm totally convinced that the Olympus OM system is the way to go.

Date: 25 Jun 2001
From: [email protected] (McEowen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The one and only Leica Addict II

>The problem with rangefinders is that they are just too limiting in their
>abilities. They work best for wide angle and OK for anything up to about
>90mm. You have no macro, PC, zoom or telephoto lenses. >>

This statement is totally true as far as it goes but it's sort of like saying "the problem with 4x5 view cameras is they're really big and bulky" or "the problem with a Widelux is that it's only good for panaramas." Yes, the rangefinder has limitations. It's a specialized tool. But what it does well it does VERY well.

....

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001
From: "David Kieltyka" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: why not a blind test? Re: The one and only Leica Addict

Robert Monaghan [email protected] wrote:

> We already know from Keppler's recent published tests in pop
> photo that comparing his Leica shots with the latest Leica
> optics against a 1970s SMC Takumar (pentax) lens, both did
> equally well in resolution at the selected  f/stops - which were
> selected as the maximum resolution points for both lenses
> (diffraction limited etc.).

I own examples of both lenses Keppler used for that test, and I agree with his results. However my Pentax KX doesn't have a rangefinder emulation mode so I'm stuck using the Leicas. {g}

-Dave-

Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001
From: "Sean Golden" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The one and only Leica Addict II - LONG

So,

What part of all this amazing rediscovery of the art of picture taking enforced by a purely manual camera was not possible for you to do with the Nikon FM2?

This may be a wonderful story about the rediscovery of the basics of picture taking, but I don't see how it is a story about a Leica, unless it took you spending $1,300 before you decided you had invested enough in your hobby that you were determined to finally learn something about it.

It didn't take me $1,300 to reach that same conclusion, it took me about $250, for a Nikon FE2. And all the rest of your message could be duplicated by my own experience with that wonderful camera.

But of course, since it isn't a Leica, it doesn't have the "legitimacy" of your conversion.

That's my problem with Leica owners. They put an air of mystery about the camera body, and then everything they say about the camera could be said about a Nikon FM2N and be just as meaningful. But instead, because it is a cheap "Leica clone" the smug Leica owners just shake their heads and say "your mystical experience with your cheap little Nikon can't possibly compare with my mystical experience with my $1,300 Leica. Don't bother to respond, you can't possibly understand what it is like up here in the clouds."

-sdg

...

Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: build quality & reliability Re: leica prod'n stats -

In my opinion, the quality of materials, low production numbers, particularly the hand-fitment and assembly that constitute a Leica M or R camera account for about 70% of the high price premium. There is a difference in quality, but this kind of quality only really shows up only in long term ownership which is not how most people buy equipment these days. The Leica M6 (which is not made to the same quality standards as the M3 was) is far better made than my Nikon FMs were. But then the FMs were quite sufficient to last 20+ years as well, I had them for 19 of those years and they were still going strong when I sold them. A 30 year old Leica feels better than a 20 year old Nikon, but unless you're sensitive to that kind of thing it's inconsequential.

The other 30% of the premium is marketing and demand. Like any other capitalist company, they'll take what the market will bear. Leica dealer markup is only about 8% on average, so it isn't the dealers getting fat from big margins.

For me, I find the imaging qualities of the Leica lenses worth the premium. And I like the feel and simplicity of the Leica M body over the more modern Hexar RF. I don't miss the extra features... personal choice. The Leica M is not perfect, but it's fine for my needs. I have two Ms and 5 lenses ... I intend to use them until I can no longer hold a camera at this point, they do everything I need.

I see no reason to excuse the egregious amount of money my kit cost me, or to wave it like a banner. It's equipment ... I bought it when I could afford it as I felt it did me the best service. The important thing is to use it to make photos which satisfy me and the people I give them to (sell them to if I were a pro). Why make excuses and rationalizations about it? They're just machines, tools for a job.

Hasselblads are wonderful; the Synchro-Compur shutter is quite complex and prone to dust intrusion. The film transport drive is also in need of fairly regular service. However, a friend of mine has one he's used regularly for 25 years and it's only been CLAed twice. (Always loved the SWC, a marvelous camera ... that Biogon lens was worth building a camera around.) A lot depends upon how well you keep it and how often it is used.

It's kinda like my 22 year old Alfa Romeo Spider ... As a transportation device, it's a pain in the ass, needs relatively frequent maintenance, costly, and there are plenty of other cars which do a superior job of carting one to the grocery store or office. But it puts a smile on my face every time I drive it, I like the way it looks... Why should I care about anything else?

Godfrey

Robert Monaghan wrote:

> Hi Godfrey,
>
> interesting post; your experiences seem to match mine, and so too your
> expectations. However, in a current related thread, the argument is  being
> made that the Leica bodies prices are justified due to their build  quality
> and reliability etc. and only needing CLAs now and again to be reliable.
>
> As you noted, my experience with most pro bodies (Nikon F, F2.. and  medium
> format rigs from TLRs to SLRs and RF) is that they also have very high
> reliability and build quality and rarely need anything but CLAs now and
> again too ;-) So I don't find this reliabilty argument very convincing.
> The build quality of Leicas is very high, but then ditto for many other
> cameras.
>
> I'm wondering out loud how much of this build quality argument for  Leicas
> is a reflection of the huge gap between the available Leica clones such  as
> the Feds and Zorkis etc. of Soviet era mfger being the main comparison  to
> Leica rangefinders in the marketplace, outside of a few rare Nikon and
> Canon RF and some odd-ball british clones and the older
> Contaflexes/medalists etc.? If you compare a Leica to a Zorki, I guess  you
> could claim build quality and reliability as a major feature ;-) But
> against many pro SLRs and cameras, I don't find it remarkable that you  can
> shoot thousands of rolls of film thru them...
>
> just for a chuckle, my Hasselblad 903SWC superwide manual suggests that
> you consider a semi-annual checkup instead of annual ones if you are
> shooting more than a hundred rolls of film thru your camera in the  average
> week ;-) grins bobm

Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001
From: "Sean Golden" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The one and only Leica Addict II - LONG

Leica is not the only rangefinder made.

There are many rangefinders in the same price range as moderately priced (but fully functional) SLRs.

I personally feel that this "appreciation of rangefinders" over SLRs is a purely subjective thing, and there are plenty of reasons NOT to like a Rangefinder, not the least of which are parallax and simple depth-of-field preview, I could put a pretty good list together if I wanted to. In fact, if pressed, I would probably argue that the only two advantages of a rangefinder over an SLR is the lack of mirror slap (but that can be addressed too by locking the mirror up for photos that are that critical for sharpness) and potentially lighter weight for lack of a prism. I would be hard pressed to find another advantage.

I think if the message was the rangefinders were more comfortable to use, etc., then the author would have said "Rangefinders" instead he made it a point to not only say "Leica" but to mention the $1,300 price tag. j

I don't think you have effectively rebutted a single point. The fundamental message is the same. A Leica is just another rangefinder, albeit an exorbitantly expensive one.

For that matter, virtually every point and shoot camera is a rangefinder, so why don't these same revelations about the use of a rangefinder hold true for an Olympus Infinity 140 zoom?

By the way, the Olympus compact cameras are very nice cameras, and if you like the free-shooting, spontenaity of pure photography, I'll put that camera up against anything. And the resulting photos are surprisingly good.

If I am the one who is fixated on the price of a Leica, why is it that Leica owners are so quick to tell everyone how much their prizes cost? I didn't bring up the price of his camera, he did. I'll "forget about the price" of a Leica just as soon as Leica owners quit making comments like "If you don't buy a Leica, you are more concerned about price than quality."

It amazes me that you did not seem to understand a single salient point of my message, instead choosing to pick around the edges looking for something to attack that has nothing to do with the message I was sending.

-sdg

...

[Ed.note: Mr. Erwin Puts is a noted photo article and CDROM author with interests in testing Leica lenses and related technical issues...]
From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2001
From: Erwin Puts [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Medium format

>A bigger negative IS always better.    Unless the camera is made in  
China.

Again a wrong statement. A few years ago te British Journal published an two part article comparing the Seagull 6x6 Rollei copy with a top class 35mm camera/lens.

Guess who won? The Seagull picture was visibly better.

Erwin

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001
From: Chandos Michael Brown [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] russian super-wide in ltm

I had one and used it on a IIIf for a couple of years. Sold it to buy a Heliar 15. Wish that I'd kept the Russar. Good luck!

Chandos

you wrote:

>I'm looking for leads on a budget Russar 20/5.6 with
>the big VF, preferably a more recent (black) version.
>Anyone shoot with this beauty?  It looks compact &
>light and seems equally compatible with both SM and M
>bodies.

[Ed. note: controversial, as some claim this is merely a tolerance and not a design issue etc.?]
From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001
From: Erwin Puts [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Konica facts

There has been much discussion about the compatibility of Leica lenses with the Hexar RF body. Most people, including all of the magazine writers have assumed that the study of the bayonet mount (that is does the Leica lens fit onto the Hexar bayonet) is sufficient to declare that lenses and bodies can be safely intermixed. Problems have been encountered and have been discussed as tolerance issues. As far as I know, no one has extended the analysis to the most crucial part: the back focus or the distance from bayonet flange to film plane. After measuring it and checking with the Konica people a most surprising fact emerges.

The back focus of the Hexar RF is 28.00mm with a tolerance bandwidth of 0.06mm!

The Leica data are: 27.80mm with a max tolerance of 0.02mm.

The first observation is this. Leica tolerances are 3 times as narrow as the Konica ones (0.02 versus 0.06). Wonder why the Leica is expensive? This small difference in tolerance is a hefty task in production engineering.

Most importantly however is the conclusion that Leica lenses cannot be used with any degree of confidence or performance on the Hexar. The back focus difference of 0.2mm and that is much too large for even a modest demand on optical performance. It simply means that the leica lens focusses 0.2 mm short of the film plane. A distance that is wide enough to kill any idea that we are talking about precision optics or engineering.

Nor can we use Hexar lenses on leica bodies, now the Hexar lenses will focus behind the film plane by 0.2mm.

Why then are many users of Hexar bodies with Leica lenses happy? Pick anyone of these explanations.

One happens to have a Hexar where the max tolerance all are in one direction, which might bring the effective back focus to about 27.90 and when stopping down or using a wide angle the difference is covered by DoF. The expectations about optical quality or the demands on the picture are quite low. The topics photographed are quite tolerant for uncritical focussing.

I find it remarkable that this topic has not been discussed as it is the key to understanding the Hexar/leica compatibility issues.

Erwin

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Konica facts

Very interesting, but a few questions.

#1 how many Hexar's were examined, and what were the serial numbers ? Konica may have corrected the problem in later bodies.

#2 this problem has been discussed on the LUG. On Feb 4, 2001 Akhil Lal made a LUG post entitled "Re: Min. focus accuracy of Leica lenses and the Hexar RF" which according to the message header, was also emailed directly to you separately. In that email Bob Shell is quoted as saying the Hexar back focus is not identical to the Leica M, and a Rollei list thread questioning the back focus is also referred to.

#3 According to a friend of mine who works as a consultant with Konica, the problem is not so much an intentionally chosen different back focus, but how the in some cameras the COMBINATION of individual tolerances of different parts can COMBINE to unacceptable levels, ie a combination of parts all with the larger tolerances will combine to make too large a total tolerance. This is another way of describing the mechanical tolerance issue you make note of.

He told me that not only is Konica Japan is aware of the problem, but they are taking in cameras to be adjusted to Leica M tolerances and adjusting them for free. I emailed Konica USA on this several weeks ago, and got the same response from them that I got in February after Akhil's post -- nothing.

#4 So, it would seem to have a good idea to have individual Konica Hexar cameras tested for back focus to M specs, until at least a large enough sample confirms how common this problem is. It may exist with some cameras, but not others.

Stephen Gandy

...

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Re: Konica facts

Stephen Gandy wrote:

>Very interesting,  but a few questions.
>
>#1  how many Hexar's were examined, and what were the serial numbers ?
>Konica may have corrected the problem in later bodies.

How can Konica correct a camera to be perfectly compatible with Leica lenses when Konica lenses (hopefully) are manufactured to the Konica spec? Change the camera and all of the Konica lenses would backfocus.

I look at this as a way for Konica to force folks to purchase Konica compatible lenses.

Konica "obviously" knew the "exact" Leica spec before ever designing the camera. So this WAS NOT a mistake.

It WAS an ON PURPOSE!

Besides promoting the sale of Konica optics, the Konica repair department cannot be deluged by folks wanting their Leica optics and/or Hexar adjusted to work properly together. They were designed to be incompatible.

Jim

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001
From: "Joe Kelly" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Konica lens quality? The 50 Hexanon is suprisingly good!!

Has anyone had any experience with the Hexar lenses? I picked up a 50 as part of a trade. It is virtually identical in quality with my 2nd generation Wetzlar Summicron. I was shocked at how good it is.It's on ebay now because it uses 40.5 mm filters. Otherwise I would keep it as a backup.

The fit and finish seem far more Leica like than the Voightlander offerings although I like their 35 2.5 very much on my IIIF.

Why didn't they use 39mm filters as long as they were copying the M mount?

Also, why didn't they buy a good German name like Cosina did with Voightlander?

Something like Plaubel would make the line more appealing to the American audience.

Cheers,

Joe Kelly

From Minolta Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2001 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Minolta/Leica lenses

--- In ManualMinolta@y..., Samuel Tang <samueltang@e...> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Is there a list of Leica lenses made by Minolta, and Minolta lenses made
> by Leica?
>
> Best,
>
> Sam.

>From memory:

Both 90mm f4 lens made for the Leica/Minolta CL were designed and made
by Leitz. The Minolta has "E. Leitz Wetzlar" (or something similar)
written on the ID ring. I think this is the only Leitz lens ever rebadged
with another manufactures name. Rokkors for the CLE are all Minolta
designed and made and will fit any M-mount Leica (try the M-Rokkor 40/2.8
-- it rivals the pre-ashperic Summicron 35/2 in performance and can be had
for much less).

Leitz rebadged several Rokkors for their SLR line (post Leicaflex) about
the time that the XE-7/R3 came out. I believe that all optical designs
were Minolta, all elements were manufactured by Minolta using Minolta
glass, and all assembly was done by Leitz in Germany. Again from memory: 

Elmarit 24/2.8 is the Rokkor 24/2.8

Elmarit(?) 16/2.8 is the Rokkor 16/2.8 (full-frame fisheye)

Several Leitz zooms were also made by Minolta

There may be others. I think the Elmarit 24/2.8 is still being made.


Cheers,

David

From: "Jeff S" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why is Leica so expensive?
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 

"Neurula [Sydney]" [email protected]> wrote:
> Why? I just dont see the point of paying so much for a 35mm camera, I
> can comprehend the cost of medium format cameras such as Hasselblad and
> Rollei, but for a 35mm Leica is sooo expensive!! (in some cases even
> more expensive than Hasselblad)


It's not that Leica is so expensive, it's that the alternatives have
become so INexpensive over the years! Pull out some historical ads and
compare to Minolta, Nikon, Canon et al prices from the '60s and earlier
and you'll see what I mean. More automated manufacturing and less
machining/plating/engraving have helped to cut costs. Leica in general
is still largely handcrafted. Also, the rangefinder camera in particular
is more of a niche item so economies of scale don't kick in.

I'm not going to tell you to go out and buy a Leica, but if it's
particular combination of handling, features and optics are right for you,
and if photgraphy is an important part of your life, it's worth a serious
consideration. Otherwise, don't worry about it; you can take fine photos
with other makes for a lot less money.

Jeff S


From: [email protected] (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why is Leica so expensive?
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 

Now just put that Koni Omega and some film in your coat pocket and take a
stroll. 

There are many differences between MF and 35mm ... size does matter.
Saying one is "better" than the other is only possible within the context
of constraints you define. 

BTW, the new price on that Koni-Omega in 1970 was around $500, similar to
a Leica M at that time. A new price now would be near the same $2500-3000
as the Leica M again, while a 1970 M4 body and lens would be around $1500
or so. The K-O is cheap because it's old and not highly valued on the
market anymore, not because it isn't a great camera. The Leica's value has
been retained because people value them, and they're also great cameras.

Godfrey

greg [email protected]> wrote:

> Neurula [Sydney] wrote:
> 
> > Why? I just dont see the point of paying so much for a 35mm camera,
> 
> Neither can I. That's why I don't own one. Also, rangefinders are just too
> limited as a 35mm camera system. Any ways, I've already got a rangefinder that
> can easily outperform any 35mm Leica. It's called a Koni-Omega. Paid about
> $200. for it.



From: greg [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why is Leica so expensive?
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 

Mxsmanic wrote:

> "greg" [email protected]> wrote...
>
> > Priced any new lenses lately Bob?
>
> I have.  For _equivalent quality_, Leica is in line with other lenses
> from other makers.  Of course, Leica doesn't make any cheapo lenses.

  Leica in line with other manufacturers??? The 50mm f1.4 goes for $1895.
at B&H while the Nikon 50mm f1.4 D is $265. and the Canon 50mm f1.4 USM
is $365.  Just where do you do your shopping?



From: greg [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: The top five dumbest Leica owner comments.
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2001 

These are ongoing themes on this ng. The top five dumbest things that we
continually hear from Leica owners are:

1) Shooting with a Leica is a different experience.

Do you mean it's a different experience from an SLR. Sure it is because
there is no moving mirror, not that it's really a big deal. But how is
it a "different experience" from other rangefinders. Some of the
comments we hear here have been that when using a Leica  "you become one
with the camera" or "it's a mystical experience". Far out man. What were
these guys smoking.

2) Leica outperforms medium format enlargements.

Remember reading comments from the Leica owners who claimed the  M6
would outperform a Hasselblad. C'mon, get a life, your M6 can't
outperform a hundred dollar YashicaMat 124G. It's a basic law of
physics. Start with a larger negative and you'll get a sharper 11x14.

3)Leica's are fast loading.

No they're not. There as awkward as heck. Sure you can learn how to load
film quickly with practice, but imagine giving one to someone unfamiliar
with the system for the first time. If you want a fast loading
rangefinder even, try a comparing your M series to a Canonet GIII QL17.

4)Leica is no more expensive than Canon or Nikon

You mean a brand new  M6 body costs about the same as the high end Nikon
or Canon. That's true enough, but now try comparing lens prices. Leica
primes are four to six times the cost. In otherwards building up a Leica
system is far more expensive when compared lens against lens and I
should add, far less versatile with no telephoto, macro, AF, etc.

5) You're jealous and can't afford a Leica

At a quarter million dollars a pop, very few of us on this ng could
likely afford a new Ferrari, but a new M6 with f1.4 50mm can be had for
about four grand or less. Not exactly a king's ransom. Anyone with a job
or even without a job but an active credit card could purchase one if
they really wanted to. Leica owners seem to have a false impression that
everyone else somehow aspires to own one someday, yet there are all
kinds of people with lots of money invested into photo equipment that
don't own or even want a Leica.

Leica's get ragged on this ng far more than other cameras. I think a lot
of it has to do with some of the continuing dumb comments being made by
some of the owners and not because of the cameras themselves. Nobody can
deny that they are unique high quality cameras. They are low tech but
also low volume built in the old world craftmanship tradition. It really
becomes a matter as whether or not this is viewed as good value for the
money.

As to whether or not a Leica can really outperform a Japanese 35mm
camera, well. let's not go there.......



From: greg [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why is Leica so expensive?
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2001 

Paul Chefurka wrote:

> "A Leica M6 with a 35/1.4 ASPH, loaded with Fuji Press 800 film  can take
> better hand-held photographs of people in very low light situations than a
> Hasselblad with its 50/4.0 Distagon loaded with the same film, where
> "better" is interpreted as 11x14 prints exhibiting less evidence of subject
> and camera motion".
>
> Ball's in your court.
>
> Paul

  Hey Paul,

I said challenge me on anything that I ever said, I certainly did not post the above statement.

However, you are talking of low light with a 35/f1.4 35mm lens going against a
slower 50/f4 medium format lens. This is photograhy 101, the wider the aperature, the faster the shutter speed. Even with 800 film there could be a significant advantage here for the 35mm lens because of the lens being a few stops faster, assuming of course that both are hand held and "low light" is just that. In this case, if no tripod is used, I would put my money on the Leica because of what you would sacrifice in neg size would more than be made up by the faster speed of the 35mm lens.

However, if open at f1.4 no lens is at it's best performance aperature. I honestly doubt if you would see all that much difference in a hand held situation between the Leica/Summicron and my Olympus OM-1 w/ /f1.4 Zuiko. You "might" on a tripod, but I'd have to see it before believing.

This is my biggest problem with Leica owners who generally on one hand claim to have the best 35mm lenses but use their cameras in hand held, low light, maximum
aperature "street photography" situations where  quality advantage would be
minimized. These are the same guys that then say their Leicas can compete against medium format. If this was really so, then why do portrait photographers use a Mamiya RZ67 in the studio when you could have a Leica?

Next question?



From: [email protected] (Paul Chefurka)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why is Leica so expensive?
Date: 4 Oct 2001 

greg [email protected]> wrote 
> Paul Chefurka wrote:
> >
> > "A Leica M6 with a 35/1.4 ASPH, loaded with Fuji Press 800 film  can take
> > better hand-held photographs of people in very low light situations than a
> > Hasselblad with its 50/4.0 Distagon loaded with the same film, where
> > "better" is interpreted as 11x14 prints exhibiting less evidence of subject
> > and camera motion".
> >
> > Ball's in your court.
> >
> > Paul
> 
>   Hey Paul,
> 
> I said challenge me on anything that I ever said, I certainly did not post the above
> statement.

Sorry, when you said "throw one at me", I assumed you meant to
challenge you on the types of Leica-related issues you seem to object
to.  One of those has always seemed to be be that "nothing ever beats
cubic (or square) inches", so I wanted to propose a scenario where
that was not the case.  Kudos to you for tackling the statement even
if you never put it quite the way I did.

> 
> However, you are talking of low light with a 35/f1.4 35mm lens going against a
> slower 50/f4 medium format lens. This is photograhy 101, the wider the aperature,
> the faster the shutter speed. Even with 800 film there could be a significant
> advantage here for the 35mm lens because of the lens being a few stops faster,
> assuming of course that both are hand held and "low light" is just that. In this
> case, if no tripod is used, I would put my money on the Leica because of what you
> would sacrifice in neg size would more than be made up by the faster speed of the
> 35mm lens.

A very good beginning.

> 
> However, if open at f1.4 no lens is at it's best performance aperature.

Nor is any lens at its maximum aperture, except in the case of a very
few truly apochromatic lenses.

> I honestly
> doubt if you would see all that much difference in a hand held situation between the
> Leica/Summicron and my Olympus OM-1 w/ /f1.4 Zuiko. You "might" on a tripod, but I'd
> have to see it before believing.

You really should try it sometime.  The performance of the 35/1.4 ASPH
wide open is (relatively speaking) breathtaking.  There's a reason
people shell out such a large amount of money for that lens, and
wide-open performance is it.
 
> This is my biggest problem with Leica owners who generally on one hand claim to have
> the best 35mm lenses but use their cameras in hand held, low light, maximum
> aperature "street photography" situations where  quality advantage would be
> minimized. These are the same guys that then say their Leicas can compete against
> medium format

I think anyone who claims consistent MF quality out of any 35mm image
is kidding themselves.  I do think that with impeccable technique, the
right film and the right subject it's possible to approach MF quality,
but it takes an inordinate amount of knowledge, skill, work and even a
bit of luck.  If you want MF tonality and enlargeability, it's a whole
lot easier to just haul out an MF camera.

That being said, the quality of imagery you can get from a modern
Leica lens with even a modicum of care is pretty surprising (and of
course the same can be said for many other 35mm systems).  Leica
lenses are very, very good - so what I (as opposed to those
generalized "Leica owners" you keep complaining about) would say is
this:  while Leica Ms are very well suited to casual, unobtrusive
candid photography where enlargeability isn't the primary concern, if
they are used in a more controlled way they are capable of producing
images that are at the current quality limit for the format.

>If this was really so, then why do portrait photographers use a
> Mamiya RZ67 in the studio when you could have a Leica?

The issue of negative retouchability has already been mentioned, but
there are  others.  The main one is the tonality available from MF
colour neg film.  Even today it's vastly superior (smoother and
richer) to the look you can get from most 35mm neg films.  The next is
mechanical issues - slight bits of damage to a neg, or the odd dust
particle, are easier to deal with in MF due to the lower enlargement
factor.  The third issue isn't one of film size but rather of camera
type.  An RF is seriously unsuited to studio portraiture due to it's
inherent parallax at portrait distances.  I have shot business
portraits for newspaper repro on 35mm SLRs, but I'd never consider
doing it with an M6.  Or with a Mamiya 7, for that matter.

> Next question?

OK, how about explaining why you feel that the idea of "becoming one
with the camera" is so strange?

My position is that this is a sensation a lot of good craftsmen get
when they know a tool so well that there is no conscious thought
required to operate it.  It's not a Leica-specific concept, or even a
photographic idea.  I know woodcarvers who feel it.  I knew a Tai-Chi
master who cut watermelons on peoples stomachs with a sword while
blindfolded - he described "becoming one with" the sword.  I've felt
this same sensation when using my old Pentaxes and my F3 as well as my
Leicas.

IMO the reason you hear Leica aficionados talk about it is that the
Leica M is such a simple camera that it takes very litle thought to
operate it.  The simpler a tool is, the easier it is to operate it
instictively.  The Leica M's simplicity promotes this.  IMO, modern
multi-mode electronic cameras like the EOS and the current Nikons work
against this, because they require too much constant awareness of the
camera.  It's only when you can forget about the camera and
concentrate all (or the majority of) you thoughts on the subject that
you will get this sensation.  As I said before, it's not limited to
Leicas or even to cameras, but among cameras the Leica is one make
that can promote this impression.

Over to you,
Paul


From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why are Un Leicas So Inexpensive ?
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 

"Max Perl" [email protected] wrote:

>I know we have some Leica users which also have e.g. Nikon
>equipment. I think it could be interresting if we could see a
>blow up of two identical images taken with a Leica and e.g. a
>Nikon. It should of course be one the e.g. Nikon lenses which
>a said to be very good. I could suggest the AIS 105/2.5.
>I have always belived if you select your lenses carefully most brands
>have made "super" lenses where it is purely the 35mm format which
>is the limiting factor.
>
>If a blow up is shown it should be possible to see the difference on
>the web?
>
>Max

I've tried it.  My effort is at 

http://members.home.net/chefurka/Photo/LensTests2/LensTests2.html

IMO it is not possible to conclusively demonstrate the differences between
Nikon and Leica lenses on the web, at least not with the test setup I used.
And given that I tried to be pretty rigorous in my methodology, I think
that if someone shows a photo on the web as an example of the superiority
of lens/camera/system X, the  correct response should be amused indulgence.

Paul



From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why are Un Leicas So Inexpensive ?
Date: Fri, 05 Oct 2001 

greg [email protected]> wrote:

>Paul Chefurka wrote:
>
>> IMO it is not possible to conclusively demonstrate the differences between
>> Nikon and Leica lenses on the web, at least not with the test setup I used.
>> And given that I tried to be pretty rigorous in my methodology, I think
>> that if someone shows a photo on the web as an example of the superiority
>> of lens/camera/system X, the  correct response should be amused indulgence.
>>
>> Paul
>
> It is impossible to demonstrate on the web, particulary because (I assume) the
>Nikkors and Summicrons would be fairly close. I've actually thought that my
>Zuiko lenses are slightly better than my Nikkors, but that is highly
>subjective. What is your subjective opinion of the Nikon/Summicrons.

My subjective opinion varies by the lens.

I've never used the Leica 21.  The Nikkor 20 I had didn't impress me in the
corners, though otherwise it was sharp and contrasty.  I hate superwides,
though.

The 24 Elmarit ASPH is better in every respect than the 24/2.8 Nikkor.
Better contrast, better tonal rendition, and better resolution, especially
at 4.0 and 2.8.  The 24/2.0 Nikkor I had couldn't suck a fart out of a dead
budgie.

The 28/2.0 Summicron and the 28/2.8 Elmarit I had before it both have
better tonality and (possibly related) marginally better flare resistance
than my 28/2.8 AIS Nikkor, though that lens, except for some diaphragm
ghosting problems,  was one of my favourite Nikkors ever, along with the
180.  I've never tried the 28/2.0 Nikkor, but I hear it's also a great
lens.

The 35/2.0 Summicron ASPH is the best 35 I've ever used.  It produces
images that have a three-dimensional feel to them, due to the excellent
resolution, very low levels of flare and maybe something I can't quite put
my finger on :-)  I traded it for a 35/1.4 ASPH that is just as sharp, but
has a slightly "rougher" look in the OOF areas.  Its performance at 1.4 has
to be seen to be believed, and you would have to pry it from my cold, dead
fingers.  In contrast I've owned three 35/2.0 Nikkors and didn't like any
of them.  They were soft at wide apertures, and even stopped down seemed to
produce "flat" images - the tonal distinctions and contrast just didn't cut
it.  I've never used the 35/1.4 Nikkor, but it's an older design, and from
what I've read I would expect the Leica lenses to best it, especially wide
open, and in terms of coma and flare.

I've had two Leica 50 Summicrons - the current optical version and the
older Dual-Range Summicron.  I didn't like the DR because of the bokeh - it
reproduced specular reflections as donuts - and wide open I found it be
flat.  The one I have now is everything we aficionados say it is.  Oddly
enough, I find it to be a very unspectacular lens, and I mean that in a
good way.  It just takes the picture.  It's sharp, the tonality is great, I
never notice "bokeh", it doesn't flare - it just does its job as well as I
could ever ask without any fuss.  the Nikkor 50/1.8 AIS I have is sharp,
but has a "roughness" to the images that is just slightly distracting - and
even more so in backgrounds.  The 55/2.8 Micro AIS is even sharper, and has
even worse OOF performance - especially close up.  I have a shot of a
dragonfly I took with it - the dragonfly is tack sharp, but the branches in
the OOF background have turned into a spider web because of line doubling.

The 75/1.4 produces beautiful images - razor sharp in focus, with a creamy
quality to the tones, and the best background rendition you could ask for.
Unfortunately it's so heavy and the frame lines in the M6 viewfinder so
poor that I hate using it.  It rarely sees the outside of my bag these
days.

I've had 3 Leica 90's.  The thin Tele-Elmarit was a treat to use, and in
retrospect turned out images that were almost as good as its successors,
except for close up at 2.8 to 5.6, where it was a bit lower in contrast.
The current 90/2.8 Elmarit is sharp, contrasty, has great tonality -
everything you could ask for in a short tele.  It's one of the two best in
the world.  The other is the 90/2.0 APO-ASPH that I traded it in for.  the
performance of that lens at 2.0 is as revelatory as the 35 at 1.4.  Sharp,
contrasty, no coma or linear distortion at all - really a tour de force.  I
have an 85/2.0 AI Nikkor that is a very good portrait lens at 2.0-4.0 (that
means it's a touch soft).  Stopped down further, you really can't tell it
from the Leicas.  That lens has its detractors, but my example is a fine,
fine lens.  I've never used the Nikkor 85/1.4, and haven't had enough
experience with the 85/1.8 AF to comment.  Using a Leica 90 close up on an
M isn't for the faint of heart, though.  There my vote would go to an SLR
lens.

The 135/3.4 APO-Telyt is another state-of-the-art lens which gives
impeccable results, but it's hard to use on an M.  I have the 180/2.8 AF
Nikkor which is my all-time favourite Nikkor.  I'd say that in normal use,
those two lenses are equally good, but the Nikkor is miles easier to use.

So that's my personal opinion.  In normal 35mm-style shooting - handheld,
stopped down to 4.0 or better, you won't see much difference between the
comparable lenses of both brands.  Where the differences show up most IME
are: shooting contre-jour, where the Leica lenses usually have better flare
suppression than their Nikkor counterparts, and at or near maximum
aperture, where I think the Leica lenses generally exhibit significantly
better resolution, contrast and distortion correction.

Hope this was interesting.
Paul



From: [email protected] (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The top five dumbest Leica owner comments.
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 

> > 1) Shooting with a Leica is a different experience.

It's different from shooting with an SLR (although not by as much as one
would think) but no different from shooting with many other RF cameras.

What's different is the feel of a very nicely made, metal camera body in
your hands if you're used to shooting with cameras made of polycarbonate
and plastic.

> > 2) Leica outperforms medium format enlargements.

Nonsense, and not proposed in proper context. Leica lenses generally
outperform most others in imaging qualities while enlargeability is a
combination of both film acutance/grain constraints and lens quality.
Leica lenses allow one to reach the film constraints more easily than
others, in general, before reaching the lens constraints.

> > 3)Leica's are fast loading.

I've heard so much foofawraw on this. I find the M4 and later cameras easy
to load, earlier series a bit more work. Big deal. 

> > 4)Leica is no more expensive than Canon or Nikon

Mostly nonsense. Most Leica lenses are significantly higher priced than
Canon or Nikon lenses, although some of the top line C or N lenses
approach Leica lenses in quality and price. The build quality and average
ownership span of Leica gear reduces to some degree the high price over
time, but comparing new for new, you will definitely spend more to build
equivalent systems in Leica compared to nearly anyone else.

> > 5) You're jealous and can't afford a Leica

Human nature is inescapable, one of the constants of our world. 

My experience is that although I've been shooting with Leica gear since
1968, it wasn't really until about 1998 that I could really see the
difference in imaging qualities over other 35mm camera systems to actually
justify buying new Leica equipment. When I could, I did so, and I am quite
happy having done it although I regard the price as very high to obtain
that small increment of improvement. 

However, I continue to shoot with several other cameras and get satisfying
results with them. It is by no means a necessity to invest in Leica gear,
it won't make you a better photographer although one might improve the
quality of your photographs. That's a technical advantage, not an
aesthetic one.

Godfrey




From: [email protected] (dave)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The top five dumbest Leica owner comments.
Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2001 

[email protected] (Godfrey DiGiorgi) wrote:

I snipped out a bunch of stuff here.... (I could've left it, though.
Godfrey's comments are well-reasoned, and I never regret reading them
a couple or more times...) >

>My experience is that although I've been shooting with Leica gear since
>1968, it wasn't really until about 1998 that I could really see the
>difference in imaging qualities over other 35mm camera systems to actually
>justify buying new Leica equipment. When I could, I did so, and I am quite
>happy having done it although I regard the price as very high to obtain
>that small increment of improvement. 

I, too, have spent years shooting with various formats and, within
formats, various brands and models of cameras.  Similarly, while I'm
not prone to jump around to experiment with lots of different films
and chemicals in the darkroom, I've varied my choices there, too.
Each year, over the last 30 years, I've sharpened my ability to
evaluate the subtle differences between images and the equipment used
to produce them.  Sometimes, I appreciate these differences just as
differences, not as hard and fast "better v. worse" results.  At other
times, I see a nuance of improvement or a quality of expression I
prefer with one combination of camera/lens/film/darkroom stuff v.
another.  Godfrey couldn't be more right in his description of these
small increments in improvement costing more than a small increment of
money!  There has always, it's appeared to me, been a log-scale
relationship between steps in quality and the cost of each quaility
increase.  Each of us has to determine for ourselves at what point an
increase in quality is discernable, affordable, desirable and
justifiable -- or for some circumstances, rationalizable.
>
>However, I continue to shoot with several other cameras and get satisfying
>results with them. It is by no means a necessity to invest in Leica gear,
>it won't make you a better photographer although one might improve the
>quality of your photographs. That's a technical advantage, not an
>aesthetic one.
>
>Godfrey

I've seen so many beautiful photographs made with good but modest
equipment,  there's no way I'd recommend that everyone go out and buy
a Leica, but I can say that after shooting with so many other things
I've considered "near Leica" in lens quality and camera handling
characteristics, I'm really glad, that when I'm shooting things that
the M6 is best at helping me shoot, I finally quit trying to find a
workaround or cheaper alternative to having the Leica.  In a similar
vein, I've tried to make various power tools serve purposes other than
that for which the were designed.  Circular saws and reciprocating
saws have their own, definite characteristics.  My circular saw is
great for so many things, but it's not too good for roughing a hole
through a building to mount an air conditioner or for demolition work.
The Sawzall, on the other hand, is perfect for rough-in work and just
plain fun for wrecking stuff!  I continually learn -- usually the hard
way -- that there's no substitute for the right tool.   

The handling characteristics of the M6, the placement of the controls
and the ABSENCE of non-useful features really help me with my work.
(I'm particularly keen on that last point.  Ever since shooting with a
Kodak Retina IIa as a kid, I've appreciated simple, straightforward
cameras whose available controls are *just* those I need.  As dazzled
by feature-laden cameras as I can be -- and I use 'em when I need 'em
-- the Leica M6 excels at helping take photographs by not having
unnecessary bells and whistles in the way of making a good photograph.


-Dave


From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why are Un Leicas So Inexpensive ?
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 

John Bateson wrote:

> However, as I understand it,
> Leica Camera currently is a nearly all German operation, since it is no
> longer a part of a larger parent company.

Leica Camera has a plant in Portugal. And branches in Northvale, NJ, USA,
Argenteuil, France, and Milton keynes, UK, as well.
The German company Deutsche Steinindustrie AG and the family of its owner
hold a minority 14% share in Leica Camera Group. Leica Camera is further
part owned (31.5%) by the French Herm�s International SCA, and by the Dutch
company Lancet Holding B.V. (13.6%). There is no telling what nationality
the small shareholders, holding the rest of the shares in the company, are.
So "nearly all German" is stretching it quite a bit.




From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Leica medium format?
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 

Robert Monaghan wrote:

> personally, I would bet that the guys at Hermes with the 35% share of
> Leica stock have dropped this project and are putting efforts into digital
> cameras.

I don't think they ever were serious about a MF Leica. Perhaps testing the
water, but no more.

The digital (and compact) business isn't going well for Leica. The relative
strength of the Yen against the Euro meant that Leica had to pay lots more
for their Japanese produced compact and digital cameras. The market did not
allow Leica to raise consumer prices to balance. This, in conjunction of
several increases of interest rates, did present Leica with considerably
higher costs than they had budgeted. So until things change, perhaps in
2002, don't expect much activity on the Leica digital (and compact camera)
front. There is talk heard about returning to core activities, i.e. opto
mechanical: building M and R series cameras (and playing with Minox),
lenses, and binoculars.

The agreement signed between Leica and Matsushita Electric Industrial Co.
was not about further development of a (future) Leica digital product. They
merely agreed that Leica will develop and build optics for high-end
camcorders sold by Matsushita's brand Panasonic.
But of course an alliance with Matsushita and the two-way technology
transfer involved may eventually lead to a new digital Leica. But not soon,
i think.




From: "Meryl Arbing" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why is Leica so expensive?
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2001 

I am not so confident on the validity of what is posted on the Internet
since it is much more likely that those who post unfavourable reviews or
opinions have probably never used or even touched the products that they
pan. There is a huge number of people who seem to have a personal vendetta
against certain brand names and look upon the posting of negative opinions
as a duty.

Many of the "problems and disadvantages" they report are fabrications or the
product of the desire to knock the products of a certain company regardless
of the truth of the matter.

Sites like http://www.photographyreview.com or http://www.epinions.com are a
hotbed for trolls and certainly not a source of reliable information.
One of the more interesting things to watch for is how the same fabricated
bits of dis-information get repeated by the troll network who, it is
obvious, have never held the camera or read the manual.
If you are going to look for information on the Internet, you need a very
effective BS detector and, I would put more value behind the opinions of a
writer for a camera magazine who signs his real name and has to stand by
what he writes than the opinion of some nameless guy on the Internet who
knew somebody whose brother had Camera X and thought it was no good!!

"Brian Ellis" [email protected]> wrote 
>  One of the great things about the internet is that we no longer need to
> rely almost exclusively on magazine reviews when buying photography
> equipment. For the first time owners of equipment who have no financial
> interest  in promoting it can easily communicate objectively with each
other
> and with prospective buyers about the pros and cons of the equipment. When
> you read comments by owners about a camera or lens or whatever, it's often
> amazing to learn of problems and disadvantages they've experienced that
> should have been obvious to anyone who even briefly tried the equipment
but
> that were never mentioned in the magazine reviews.
>


From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Leica-Konica incompatibility?
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 

According to Erwin Puts, the Konica Hexar RF (or the rather the
Hexanon-M lens) has a different back focus from Leica:
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/hexarrf.html

Puts says it's significantl and makes both systems incompatible.  The
difference is 0.09mm, not negligible in my view but probably won't
matter much with wideangles.  Perhaps it would with a 50mm lens at
wider apertures and closer distances, even more so for any longer
focal lengths.

Your thoughts?

Andrew


From: [email protected] (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica-Konica incompatibility?
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 

The Konica Hexar-RF has a metal chassis with polised, high precision film
guide rails. 

Tolerances for back focus and film plane alignment are usually in the +/-
.0005-.001" range (to account for film curvature) even on relatively
inexpensive cameras. 

I've heard varying reports of compatibility and incompatibility. My take
on it is that if I were to buy a Hexar RF and going to use Leica M lenses
on it, I would send the camera (and any Konica lenses I bought with it)
and one of the Leica lenses to have the camera's rangefinder and Konica
lenses calibrated to the Leica lens focusing cam, since I know the Leica
lenses are accurately cammed for use with the M bodies. 

Konica does not make any claims for focusing compatibility with Leica lenses.

Godfrey
 
ChrisQ [email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] wrote:
> 
> > 
> > Puts says it's significantl and makes both systems incompatible.  The
> > difference is 0.09mm, not negligible in my view but probably won't
> > matter much with wideangles.  Perhaps it would with a 50mm lens at
> > wider apertures and closer distances, even more so for any longer
> > focal lengths.
> >
> 
> 0.09 mm is between 3 and 4 thousands of an inch (0.003-4"). I doubt if
> manufacturing tolerances are that good, especially if it has a plastic
> body.
> 
> Chris



From: ChrisQ [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica-Konica incompatibility?
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:

> 
> Tolerances for back focus and film plane alignment are usually in the +/-
> .0005-.001" range (to account for film curvature) even on relatively
> inexpensive cameras.
> 

Need to be convinced. Any documentary evidence of that or links ?.
Even to provide tolerances of +/- 1 thousandth of an inch, (0.001"),
is difficult in production and would be degraded by the expansion and
contraction of the material with temperature, even more so in the case
of a plastic body. The coefficient of expansion  of aluminium =
0.00001244 per unit length. Assuming 1" between lens mount and film
plane and a temperature range of 32-102 degrees F, we have:

Aluminium: 0.00001244 x 70 = 0.00087"
or
Brass:	0.00001 x 70 = 0.0007"

In each case, about 3/4 of a thou over temp range.

Would think you are probably an order of magnitude out. Would expect
manufacturing tolerances for something like this to be of the order of
+/- 0.005", for mass produced cameras, maybe less for hand made stuff
like Leica and would be one reason why Leica are more expensive, since
adjustment to such fine tolerances is very labour intensive. However,
I doubt if much less than this sort of tolerance could be maintained
over thousands of lenses / bodies and decades of production.

To give an idea of scale, a human hair is around 0.003" thick, as is
80gm laser printer / photocopy paper.

Chris


From: T P please.reply@newsgroup>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Will Leica M6 owners welcome aperature priority?
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 

greg [email protected]> wrote:
>
> Leica already has worked with Minolta and to my understanding,
> the possible medium format camera is a joint Fuji project. 

Then you understand wrong.  After Fuji got together with Hasselblad to
produce the X-Pan, which is capable of making a sizeable dent in sales
of the Leica M, the Leica board were unsurprisingly *apoplectic*.

That was what precipitated the ending of the Leica/Fuji collaboration to
make digital compact cameras and the recent signing of a Memorandum of
Understanding with Matsushita (Panasonic) for future collaboration in
digital cameras.

> Therefore it is not a
> stretch to guess that any aperature priority M6 would likely be a combined
> German/Japanese project.

By basing this on a wholly false assumption, you are stretching your
credibility to the limit.  But that doesn't mean that the additional
Leica model (to the M6) was not a German/Japanese collaboration.  It
still might be ...

Originally, Leica and Ricoh collaborated to produce a design for an 
M series camera with aperture priority AE and a faster shutter.  The
impending loss of the Leica patents on the M mount and the introduction
of the Cosina Bessa series must have suggested to Leica that they needed
to offer something more competitive with more modern features.  

The result was a design that, for reasons unknown, one or both parties
decided not to develop further.  However, Konica, also mindful of the
end of the M mount patents, wanted to develop a rangefinder camera with
interchangeable lenses after the Hexar with fixed 35mm f/2 lens had
proved to be a success.  

Up to this point, everything I have stated is an open secret in the
Japanese optical industry.  From now, it's pure rumour.  g>

Rumour has it that Konica and Ricoh collaborated to produce the Hexar RF
which allegedly has its basis in the design Ricoh previously worked up
for Leica.  Some rumours go even further and suggest that the Hexar RF
*is* the Ricoh/Leica M7, but IMHO that is probably stretching things
just a little too far - something I will leave to you, Greg.

;-)

I would be *very* surprised indeed if the possible medium format Leica,
which was openly suggested to journalists by Leica's President a few
months ago, could ever be produced in collaboration with Fuji, who Leica
must now consider as one of their larger threats in the marketplace.
 
-- 
Best regards,
TP


Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Photo Techniques: Bob Shell 25 Best Cameras
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>



> From: "steven arterberry" [email protected]>
> Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 
> To: [email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Photo Techniques: Bob Shell 25 Best Cameras
> 
> I enjoyed the article also. Several of the cameras that you featured I own.
> Do you really favor the M3 DS over a (later) SS?


The SS is a bit handier to use, no doubt, but much more prone to stripping
out advance gears.  This I was told by one of the old timers at the Leica
factory when I visited them some years ago.  He advised me to avoid the SS
ones, and gave me a serial number range to buy within.  I followed his
advice, and except for clean and lube, the camera has never needed any
work.  

Bob



Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Photo Techniques: Bob Shell 25 Best Cameras
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>



> From: "Austin Franklin" [email protected]>
> Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 
> To: [email protected]>
> Subject: RE: [Rollei] Photo Techniques: Bob Shell 25 Best Cameras
> 
> Would you mind sharing that serial number range (and any other "advice" he
> gave you)?


No, I wouldn't mind, if I still had it.  I don't.

I was in Solms in 1989 for a week.  I was there with Jim Lager and some
others interested in Leica.  During one of the visits to the factory we
were introduced to some of the old guys who were third and fourth generation
Leica employees.  I struck up a conversation with one of them and he
surprised me by being very disparaging of the M6 with its rough feeling
steel gears.  So I just asked him what he thought was the best Leica of
all, and he said M3 double stroke and jotted down a serial number range on
a piece of paper.  When I got back from Germany I put out the word to
dealers I knew to look for a really good user camera in that range.
Someone, and I honestly don't recall who with certainty, found one that fit
my specifications.  May have been Stan Tamarkin.  Not a collector's piece
because someone had crudely engraved his name on the back.  I bought it, and
carried it over to Hove Camera where I had their repairman replace the Leica
fitting on the back with a standard PC contact for easier flash use.  Later
on Peter Walnes found some of those quick load conversion kits Leica made
for the M3 and I bought one and converted the camera.  The only thing I am
still looking for is one of those cranks that used to be made to fit over
the rewind knob for faster rewinding.  Oh, and on a later trip to Solms I
was given a hand full of "red dots" Leica logos, and so my M3 now sports a
red dot.

I'm not a purist about this stuff, as you can see.  I want a camera I can
use.  I have no earthly idea what became of that slip of paper with the
serial numbers on it.  If I can remember, next time I'm at my studio I can
jot down the serial number of my camera.

Bob



From: [email protected] (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Will Leica flop in the medium format market?
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 

The Leica CL sold pretty well. The reason it was discontinued was that it
didn't make any profit for Leica ... Sources close to the company have
informed me that the production line output was so variable that up to 75%
of a given run required rework at Leica before they would pass inspection
for delivery to customers. A lot of folks, including me, would love to
have a lower priced, CL sized Leica RF camera with a few less features as
long as we could have it without the loss of quality. 

A mechanical CL with the improved metering system of an M6, compatible
with the collapsible Elmar-M 50/2.8 lens and with framelines for 24, 35
and 50 mm lenses would be absolutely fantastic.

Godfrey


Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] M3 DS
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>



> From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]>
> Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 
> To: "'[email protected]'" [email protected]>
> Subject: RE: [Rollei] M3 DS
> 
> What I am saying, condensed just for you, is that if Leica were a bit smarter
> they would have had later M models with a hinged back door and quick loading
> system like every other manufacturer. After all they did it on their R series
> so what is the problem, design inertia?! While Leica claims the bottom loading
> is to ensure a more rigid body, I think its pure BS. They simply do not like
> change of any sort.


They tried this hinged back door radical idea on the M5.  Since the M5
didn't sell, they concluded that the hinged back door was a bad idea and
got rid of it on the M6.  They had no choice on the R cameras since they
were just recycled old Minolta SLRs!

Bob



From: "David Kieltyka" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: REPOST: Re: some points learned was Re: Leica (Pepsi-style) challenge?
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 

Robert Monaghan [email protected]> wrote:

> but the bottom line is probably more in keeping with the Tulip
> craze and Extraordinary delusions and the Madness of Crowds
> classic work ;-) ;-) Not just leica, but the whole photography thing,
> esp. how the ads and camera clerks and mags work on
> convincing us that our photography would be SOOOoo much
> better if only we had the latest camera and lenses from XYZ ;-) ;-)
>
> wish it were so. But so far, I've determined that improvement in
> photography seems more related to practice than purchase...

Just read this...and I agree. Marketing and mystique rule. After 25+ years
of pic taking--with a very wide variety of gear, handheld and on
tripod--I've found I can get pretty much equal results with any high quality
system. I won't say whether I mean equally good or equally bad. g> Each
brand has particular camera bodies and lenses that stand out from the pack.
No one brand dominates the pack, though in western countries Leica has all
but owned the 35mm rangefinder market for decades by default. This may
change if the folks at Cosina keep ratcheting up the quality and breadth of
the Voigtl�nder line.

So I stopped chasing after the rainbow. The gear I own is way more than good
enough for my abilities and needs. In 2001 I used more than twice as much
film as in 2000. I intend to at least double my output again this year.
Practice practice practice....

:-)

-Dave-



From: "David Kieltyka" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica's 400% higher prodn line costs Re: Sacrillege question
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 

Robert Monaghan [email protected]> wrote:

> Later, I decided to see what would be the effects of a
> scratched lens, a gouged lens, a cracked lens, and
> sought a lens I could trash, a real cheapy. I got some
> Osawa 28mm f/2.8 AI and a 400mm f/7.7 and others for
> under $15 each. But when I tested these lenses, they did
> surprisingly well at my usual shooting apertures (mid-
> range f/stops). Too good really, I couldn't justify
> destroying them, but kept them as backups to my
> backups ;-)

Heh. I did much the same thing twice this past year. The first time was with
a Jupiter-3 lens in Leica Thread Mount. This is a Russian clone of the Zeiss
50mm f/1.5 Sonnar. Cost me $45 or so. Well...the damn thing outperforms my
Zeiss originals. Must be a fluke, everything in its right place on a great
day in the Arsenal factory, but the truth is the truth. So I can't very well
mess it up.

The second time was with a Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 SLR lens. I bought a real
beater on eBay with the intent of turning it into a soft portrait lens via
various manipulations of the front element (which has more than a few bright
marks and overzealous cleaning smudges already). I made the mistake of
shooting a test roll first. According to prevailing wisdom this lens
shouldn't be a stellar performer. But it is. In fact it's at least as sharp
& contrasty as the 105 I've used and loved for ages. It has made me pull out
my Nikon gear and start using it again seriously, which has been a lotta
fun. But I still don't have a soft portrait lens. :-)

-Dave-



From: "Jaan Peets" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica's 400% higher prodn line costs Re: Sacrillege question
Date: Wed, 9 Jan 2002 

Of course, with a basic sound design, under reasonable conditions, I am not
surprised at getting good performance from a wide range of lenses.

In large format, good lenses have been around from at least the turn of the
century. But, resolution alone doesn't tell the tale. Earlier (pre- WW2)
lenses simply didn't have the contrast that modern lenses do, and lots of
them performed poorly under conditions that were conducive to flare. Head to
head testing of "classic" lenses vs. modern multicoated lenses show that
across a broad range of shooting conditions, the older lenses just did not
perform consistently (Photo Techniques did this a few years ago).

Soooooo, seriously, if you were headed out on a real paying shoot, under
varied lighting conditions, would it be a toss up whether you took out the
$15 lens or the $1,000 lens? I don't think so.

But I do acccept the point that differences are likely not as large as some
would have us believe.



Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Quality of voigtlander and cosina

Dilbertdroid2 wrote:

> You sounded so......well, reasonable, up until this point.   Now your prose
> turns out to be a cheap troll.

The comment was tongue-in-cheek, but I guessed you missed that.

>  Apparently you are more interested in
> quantity than quality.

I am primarily interested in making money from my equipment. The variety of work
that I do is made possible in part by having a selection of equipment. The final
image quality is very important to my clients and myself. If the equipment does
not provide that quality, then it is not retained.

> The Voigtlander lenses are a good value for the money,
> but they aren't Leica lenses, by a long shot.   I'd rather have one
> exceptional, world-class lens than a whole bagful of medicre lenses.    I guess
> not everyone feels that way.

I have Leica equipment, as well as other branded equipment. There have been
photographers much better than any of us that use only one or two focal lengths.
There are also other famous professionals that use many different lenses, and body
combinations, and other formats than 35 mm. An excess, or lack, of equipment will
not be an advantage unless you can compose good shots.

I feel that someone asking about Voigtl�nder is likely considering that choice
based upon quality at a lower cost. Undoubtedly, Leica equipment is better
quality, but a Leica 21 mm is over $US 2200. To me this is a useful focal length
for some work, more so than a 35 mm, or a 28 mm. The Voigtl�nder 21, 15, 12, and
fast 28 mm could all be purchased for the cost of one Leica 21 mm.

Since I do some architectural interior shots, it is not always possible to use
just one focal length and get the desired shots. Having a selection when I arrive
works better for me under any shooting situation. It really just depends on what
you are trying to achieve with your photography.

I realize that the "REC" in this group stands for recreation, so please excuse
comments related to my work when they do not coincide with others hobby. This NG
provides a good resource for researching equipment, and that is why I am here. If
I can share some experience with someone, then I hope it benefits someone. If I
choose to criticize, I will do so directly. I would expect no less from anyone
else.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com>





From: [email protected] (McEowen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 27 Oct 2001 
Subject: Re: Quality of voigtlander and cosina

 You sounded so......well, reasonable, up until this point.   Now your prose
turns out to be a cheap troll.    Apparently you are more interested in
quantity than quality.  The Voigtlander lenses are a good value for the money,
but they aren't Leica lenses, by a long shot.   I'd rather have one
exceptional, world-class lens than a whole bagful of medicre lenses.    I guess
not everyone feels that way.  >>


I can see both sides. I have four Leica lenses and one Voigtsina -- the 15mm
Heliar. I could never justify a Leica superwide so the Heliar makes sense,
especially at less than $400 (purchased from Hong Kong). That's little more
than a Leica finder would cost. It's an OK lens and considering how often I use
it (I've published exactly TWO photos with it in a year and a half) it's all I
need. Perhaps other Cosina/Voigtlander lens would make sense for other little
used focal lengths. Maybe if somebody only occassionally uses a 50mm or a 90mm
then the Voigtsina would do --  of course, once you start comparing the prices
of user grade used Leica equipment to new Cosina stuff (can't find a whole lot
of used stuff yet) there isn't much price difference. At least not from a
utilitarian point of view. If you look hard enough you can find a user chrome
rigid summicron 50mm for about $400. I bet you can't get a new Voigtsina 50 for
that. There may be more price difference in a 90mm. Any desirable used Leica
90mm is going to run at least $500-$600.


From: [email protected] (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Quality of voigtlander and cosina
Date: Sat, 27 Oct 2001 

The Leica thread mount Voigtl�nder lenses are very good quality,
particularly for the money. These lenses are marketed under the Cosina
name in some markets. The VC Bessa bodies are quite good quality for the
money as well. Comparing to the Leica RF cameras, I would certainly expect
the Leica lenses and bodies to be higher quality given the far far greater
prices they carry. However, I would say that the VC cameras and lenses
represent very useful tools that can return very good photographs. 

I have Leica gear and use both the Heliar 15 and the Leica 24 lenses. Both
return excellent pictures. I happen to love the 21mm focal length and am
considering buying one: I'm attracted to the Voigtl�nder because of its
size and cost, I'm attracted to the Leica because it's one stop faster and
will likely be  sharper wide open than the Voigtl�nder. Whether that's
worth the 4x increase in cost is debateable. See Jim Tardio's review of
the Voigtl�nder 21 at http://www.jimtardio.com/voigtlander-21.html>. 

I have no experience with any of the Cosina SLR lenses they're making
nowadays. The OEM bodies that Cosina makes for Nikon, Olympus and Yashica
are useable but I find their viewfinder quality is second rate.

Godfrey



Date: Sun, 28 Oct 2001 
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Quality of voigtlander and cosina

Dilbertdroid2 wrote:

> It does not sound like you know what a PC lens is used to shoot. Besides, I
> find
> it better to take a 4" x 5" when I need to control perspective. The 35 mm PC
> lenses I have tried from Nikon did not produce results that I found acceptable,
> so
> I no longer own or rent those.  >>>
>
> But, conveniently, you didn't try the Nikkor 28mm PC?   And if you can't get
> acceptible results from the later model 35mm PC Nikkors, I've got serious
> reservations about  your ability to get acceptible results from anything.
> (especially when you are pushing Voiglander lenses).   But heck, I'm game,
> professor.  How about a lecture on what "a PC lens is used to shoot"?

Since it would be an in-depth explanation, and I like to be thorough, I thought
you may enjoy this link more. The author describes this in sufficient detail, and
provides nice example images.

http://www.uscoles.com/pclens.htm>

No, I did not try the 28 mm PC lens. After trying the 35 mm PC, I decided that I
liked the results better from using my 4" x 5". Acceptable performance in this
case (IMHO) would have been that the quality matched the images from my 4" x 5".
Then I would have been able to not need to sometimes bring LF equipment to a
shoot. I will acknowledge that this may have been an unrealistic expectation of 35
mm equipment.

I am not pushing Voigtl�nder, nor any other equipment. Choices make for diversity,
and I am glad there are many. I do not own anything from Voigtl�nder, though I
have been investigating the possible use of the ultra wide lenses. That is the
reason I responded to the original poster, and shared my investigation
experiences. Rationalizing is another pointless issue, and best left to each
individual.

Since you question my abilities, I am still curious about yours. If you have some
images you could share, perhaps I can learn something from you. If I ever got to
the point when I thought my images could not improve, then I would quit taking
photos. I would be happy to view some of your images, especially architectural
interiors.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com>




From: [email protected] (Peter Irwin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Russian/Ukranian Cameras: Experience with Fedka or CamerasRussian.com?
Date: 30 Oct 2001 

I bought a Kiev 4a from Fedka nearly two months ago.

Good points:

- Arrived within the week
- No light leaks
- Shutter appears to be accurate
- I'm rather pleased with the pictures I've taken

Not so good points:

- The takeup spool is not original, but a plastic spool with
  a slot in the middle. I have solved the loading problem with
  3M painter's tape (blue, and much better stuff than regular
  masking tape.) Loading with the blue tape is a breeze, my
  attempts to cut the leader to fit the spool supplied by Fedka
  were frustrating.

- The camera is not quite as good cosmetically as I would have
  expected from an EXC rating.  This may be unfair of me and his
  rating may well be dead on by Soviet camera standards.

- There are people selling Kiev's for half his price. 
  He has a good reputation for delivering cameras which work properly.
  I no experience with the cheaper sellers yet.


I'm pretty happy with my purchase, and it was well within my budget.


Peter.
---- 
[email protected]


[email protected] (Stephen Rosenbach) wrote 
> I was really into photography, mostly B&W and doing my own darkroom
> work, 20+ years ago. Now that my 15-year-old son has become
> interested, it's rekindled my own desire to start shooting and
> developing again.
> 
> When I looked at years worth of my old photos, I found that my
> favorite ones were taken around 1973-1978 with a Leica IIIc and 50mm
> lens. Naturally, I got rid of that camera 20 years ago :-(
> 
> I was always interested in Leica clones, and after a few weeks of
> searching the net, I've become fascinated by all that I've read on the
> Feds, Zorkis (and yes, even the boxy Kievs). I'd like to take the
> plunge and try one out - at the prices, it's not a big risk.
> 
> Two sellers that caught my eye are Fedka in NYC ( www.fedka.com ) and
> CamerasRussian.com ( www.camerasrussian.com ) on the West Coast. Fedka
> (Yuri Boguslavsky) seems especially knowlegeable and straightforward.
> 
> Has anyone had any experience with either of these two companies, or
> any other Fed/Zorki/Kiev experience to relate?
> 
> TIA for any advice!
> 
> Best regards,
> SteveR
> 
> Stephen Rosenbach
> Arnold, MD


From: [email protected] (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Quality of voigtlander and cosina
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 

There's a thread on this topic on the leica forum at
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=006qU4>. 

The M2 has a manual reset frame counter, same load and rewind as the M3,
and has a .72x magnification viewfinder with 35, 50 and 90mm framelines
where the M3's .91x vf gives you 50, 90 and 135 framelines. Aside from the
dubious difficulty of setting the exposure counter properly and the ease
with which you can use a 35mm or 135mm lens, the two have pretty much
identical build quality and are just as easy to use one to the other. 

The M4 and later cameras have the rapid load system, a fast rewind crank.
M4-P and M6 have hotshoe terminal flash sync. Frameline pairs for 28, 35,
50, 75, 90 and 135 lenses showed up on the M4. M6s have the meter in them,
M6TTLs add TTL flash metering and an easier to see meter indicator/larger
shutter speed dial that is easier to use also.

Some feel that the older M3, M2 and M4 cameras have finer build quality
and superior feel, point to some of the assemblies in the M4-P and M6 line
as simplified and cheapened, like the rangefinder support casting. While I
have no doubt that some of the more expensive, adjustable assemblies in
the earlier bodies have been replaced with less expensive components, and
maybe the materials have been cheapened a bit, I personally don't see any
real difference in feel or practical longevity in use. Older models tend
to need more adjustment because adjustable assemblies are more likely to
get jarred out of spec through use. The M6 and later inclusion of LEDs in
the viewfinder changed the optics a little such that a bit of flare in the
focusing patch crept in, that's the biggest downside I've found, and I
find it really doesn't bother me too much. 

All these things tend to be pretty minor. The Leica M is overbuilt, rugged
and reliable; these small detail differences tend to get overblown very
easily. Any M, taken care of, will last for many many years of hard use.
While I can admire the fine build quality and materials of the older
cameras, I don't feel them to be much different in my hands ... I prefer
the improved loading, rewinding, viewfinder and meter of the more modern
ones. 

What's more important from my perspective, really, is the condition of a
particular example, regardless of age and model. The M3 and M2 are very
old cameras now ... buying an inexpensive one will likely have additional
costs associated as most will need at least a CLA, many will need new
shutter curtains and some will need more extensive refurbishment.

For me, the best bang for the buck in Leica M cameras is the M4-P. It's
very much an M6 'classic' without the meter. Very good ones sell for
relative bargain prices ($700-850 for good quality users), and they're
young enough that most don't quite need an overhaul yet. 

But whichever one you like to use, they're all very good cameras that can
take beautiful pictures. It's up to you to use them and see those
pictures.

Godfrey


[email protected] wrote:

> Maybe a bit of an off question regarding this topic . . . do you feel
the M2 is a bit easier to use than an M3?
> The specs list the viewfinder as being simpler. If you could relate why
you chose the M2, or compare to M3, I
> would be interested in your views. I have been considering an M2
recently, rather than another M3.
> 
> I still mostly choose to get older equipment due to the more rugged
build. I have a tendency to be hard on
> equipment on occasion. The Voigtl�nder lenses do have good build quality
compared to other new Japanese lenses.
> Only time will tell if these hold up well, grow fungus, become loose, etc.
> 
> The ultra-wides may be occasional use only for some, which may mean they
would not wear out any time soon.
> Perhaps comparing Voigtl�nder to Konica Hexar would be a more valid
comparison than comparing with Leica. I
> have not yet found a Konica Hexar in my area to look at.
> 
> Ciao!
> 
> Gordon Moat
> Alliance Graphique Studio
> http://www.allgstudio.com>


From: "fscd1" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Russian/Ukranian Cameras: Experience with Fedka or CamerasRussian.com?
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 


"Stephen Rosenbach" [email protected]> wrote...
> I was really into photography, mostly B&W and doing my own darkroom
> work, 20+ years ago. Now that my 15-year-old son has become
> interested, it's rekindled my own desire to start shooting and
> developing again.
>
> When I looked at years worth of my old photos, I found that my
> favorite ones were taken around 1973-1978 with a Leica IIIc and 50mm
> lens. Naturally, I got rid of that camera 20 years ago :-(
>
> I was always interested in Leica clones, and after a few weeks of
> searching the net, I've become fascinated by all that I've read on the
> Feds, Zorkis (and yes, even the boxy Kievs). I'd like to take the
> plunge and try one out - at the prices, it's not a big risk.
>
> Two sellers that caught my eye are Fedka in NYC ( www.fedka.com ) and
> CamerasRussian.com ( www.camerasrussian.com ) on the West Coast. Fedka
> (Yuri Boguslavsky) seems especially knowlegeable and straightforward.
>
> Has anyone had any experience with either of these two companies, or
> any other Fed/Zorki/Kiev experience to relate?
>
> TIA for any advice!
>
> Best regards,
> SteveR
>
> Stephen Rosenbach
> Arnold, MD

The Zorki 4k is a nice little camera that for some reason I have an overly
soft spot for...The Fed is a piece of crap that is best used as a door stop
or a paperweight...though there are undoubtedly some users here on this ng
who will want to skin me alive for saying that! The Kiev is somewhere
between the Zorki and the Fed quality wise.

The only real problem with all russian cameras is the lack of quality
control at the factories. Camera Russians I 've heard  ( so don't take this
as gospel) disassembly some fo the cameras and correct faults existent
within them as the left the factory...The Kiev medium format slrs seeming to
suffer from some stunningly poor final assembly at the factory requiring re
blacking of the mirror boxes and prism housings.

Before anyone gets really pissy with me the first camera I ever had and used
for the first 5 years (1976-81)  was a Zenith-E. Agricultrual with a light
meter that was truly beyound useless (would have seriously been better off
trying to use a hamster to measure light levels with) but it won me two
competitions and several rock concert photographs taken on that camera were
published on record sleeves and in a magazine.

Caveat empter with regard to russian photo goods, the traders you list have
good reputations so if you were unfortunate to get a dud from them I'm sure
they'd exchange it without too much fuss (after all they're proberbly only
paying a few dollars for each one anyway)

One thing though don't expect the bodies to be anything like the Lieca you
had in terms of quality and finish. The optics are pretty damn good though.



From: "fscd1" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Russian/Ukranian Cameras: Experience with Fedka or CamerasRussian.com?
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 


"Stephen Rosenbach" [email protected]>...
> I was really into photography, mostly B&W and doing my own darkroom
> work, 20+ years ago. Now that my 15-year-old son has become
> interested, it's rekindled my own desire to start shooting and
> developing again.
>
> When I looked at years worth of my old photos, I found that my
> favorite ones were taken around 1973-1978 with a Leica IIIc and 50mm
> lens. Naturally, I got rid of that camera 20 years ago :-(
>
> I was always interested in Leica clones, and after a few weeks of
> searching the net, I've become fascinated by all that I've read on the
> Feds, Zorkis (and yes, even the boxy Kievs). I'd like to take the
> plunge and try one out - at the prices, it's not a big risk.
>
> Two sellers that caught my eye are Fedka in NYC ( www.fedka.com ) and
> CamerasRussian.com ( www.camerasrussian.com ) on the West Coast. Fedka
> (Yuri Boguslavsky) seems especially knowlegeable and straightforward.
>
> Has anyone had any experience with either of these two companies, or
> any other Fed/Zorki/Kiev experience to relate?
>
> TIA for any advice!
>
> Best regards,
> SteveR
>
> Stephen Rosenbach
> Arnold, MD

The Zorki 4k is a nice little camera that for some reason I have an overly
soft spot for...The Fed is a piece of crap that is best used as a door stop
or a paperweight...though there are undoubtedly some users here on this ng
who will want to skin me alive for saying that! The Kiev is somewhere
between the Zorki and the Fed quality wise.

The only real problem with all russian cameras is the lack of quality
control at the factories. Camera Russians I 've heard  ( so don't take this
as gospel) disassembly some fo the cameras and correct faults existent
within them as the left the factory...The Kiev medium format slrs seeming to
suffer from some stunningly poor final assembly at the factory requiring re
blacking of the mirror boxes and prism housings.

Before anyone gets really pissy with me the first camera I ever had and used
for the first 5 years (1976-81)  was a Zenith-E. Agricultrual with a light
meter that was truly beyound useless (would have seriously been better off
trying to use a hamster to measure light levels with) but it won me two
competitions and several rock concert photographs taken on that camera were
published on record sleeves and in a magazine.

Caveat empter with regard to russian photo goods, the traders you list have
good reputations so if you were unfortunate to get a dud from them I'm sure
they'd exchange it without too much fuss (after all they're proberbly only
paying a few dollars for each one anyway)

One thing though don't expect the bodies to be anything like the Lieca you
had in terms of quality and finish. The optics are pretty damn good though.



From: [email protected] (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Russian/Ukranian Cameras: Experience with Fedka or CamerasRussian.com?
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 

The most difficult thing to deal with is that the Russian cameras are
extremely variable with respect to quality control. Some are quite
excellent performers, others just mediocre, but moreso one example of the
same camera will be wonderful and the next a total dog. 

I have a couple of Kiev's ... a 1952 Kiev II and a 1973 Kiev IVa. The
Kiev's were essentially identical to pre-WWII Contax II cameras and the
lenses were clones of Zeiss designs. I got interested in them for that
reason as I've always liked the Contax rangefinder cameras of that era.
Evidently, the parts are so identical on the cameras that many Contax II
generation cameras are repaired with new Kiev parts that are still
available. 

Examining my two cameras (both of which I bought for under $60 with lens
and case and both of which need service...), I conjecture that what
happened was that when the Contax tooling was brought to Arsenal and the
Kiev II was put in production, they made detail modifications but never
replaced any of the dies. The older one is *identical* in all major
structures and components to the later one, but the quality of the
castings and parts is nowhere near as good. It's as if they just kept
making them on the same tooling, regardless of how the tooling was wearing
out, until they just couldn't anymore. 

That said, I would like to get at least one of them into good shape,
particularly the older one. It's fun to take pictures with a piece of
history like this. 

On the other hand, for a youngster coming into photography, I'd suggest
finding something newer and more reliable so that his learning process
does not have to cope with the additional uncertainty of old, fallible
cameras. If you like rangefinders, you can find good deals on Canon
Canonet, Olympus 35SP and 35RC, Minolta HiMatic, etc that have great
lenses, manual and auto operation, take great pictures. Another camera I
would recommend would be a Voigtl�nder Vito II ... it's Skopar lens is
remarkably good. 

Of course, the modern equivalent (a Voigtl�nder Bessa-R) would likely
outperform all of the above and is not *too* expensive brand new. 

While others will suggest buying something brand new and more automated, I
find that for the right enthusiastic youngster, having a cool old camera
can be a big plus. It's something others likely won't have .... I always
liked using oddball stuff. It depends on the person a lot, you have to use
your judgement there.

have fun!

Godfrey


"Stephen Rosenbach" [email protected]> wrote...
> > I was really into photography, mostly B&W and doing my own darkroom
> > work, 20+ years ago. Now that my 15-year-old son has become
> > interested, it's rekindled my own desire to start shooting and
> > developing again.
> >
> > When I looked at years worth of my old photos, I found that my
> > favorite ones were taken around 1973-1978 with a Leica IIIc and 50mm
> > lens. Naturally, I got rid of that camera 20 years ago :-(
> >
> > I was always interested in Leica clones, and after a few weeks of
> > searching the net, I've become fascinated by all that I've read on the
> > Feds, Zorkis (and yes, even the boxy Kievs). I'd like to take the
> > plunge and try one out - at the prices, it's not a big risk.
> >
> > Two sellers that caught my eye are Fedka in NYC ( www.fedka.com ) and
> > CamerasRussian.com ( www.camerasrussian.com ) on the West Coast. Fedka
> > (Yuri Boguslavsky) seems especially knowlegeable and straightforward.
> >
> > Has anyone had any experience with either of these two companies, or
> > any other Fed/Zorki/Kiev experience to relate?
> >
> > TIA for any advice!


From: unknown [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Russian/Ukranian Cameras: Experience with Fedka or CamerasRussian.com?
Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 

You might try posting your question here:

http://www.beststuff.com/forum/list.php?f=10 as these people use
russian cameras all the time and have been VERY help to me with my
specific questions.  Their recommendations for dealers were also very
helpful (I ended up using 2 they gave thumbs up to).  They have also
help with other things, like putting me onto a website that has a
complete Zorki 4 owners manual in english on it.

I've bought 3 cameras from the Ukraine on eBay for less then $60 - $10
shipping each - with case and lens, all in excellent condition (that
was what they were sold as and thats what they are - same as I would
expect from a US dealer selling something in excellent condition).  2
took 1 week in shipping and the other took 3.

Two of them were usable as they came and the 3rd needed a CLA (the
lens was somewhat sticky when focusing).  None of them were newer then
1968.  All take good pictures and it is kinda fun to have to really
think about ALL aspects of my photos again.  Sometimes auto exposure
takes that away. 

The West Coast dealer you mentioned has a reputation for overstating
the condition of his cameras - at least thats been the experience of
the people at the board I mentioned above.

Good luck...


[email protected] (Stephen Rosenbach) wrote:

>I was really into photography, mostly B&W and doing my own darkroom
>work, 20+ years ago. Now that my 15-year-old son has become
>interested, it's rekindled my own desire to start shooting and
>developing again.
>
>When I looked at years worth of my old photos, I found that my
>favorite ones were taken around 1973-1978 with a Leica IIIc and 50mm
>lens. Naturally, I got rid of that camera 20 years ago :-(
>
>I was always interested in Leica clones, and after a few weeks of
>searching the net, I've become fascinated by all that I've read on the
>Feds, Zorkis (and yes, even the boxy Kievs). I'd like to take the
>plunge and try one out - at the prices, it's not a big risk.
>
>Two sellers that caught my eye are Fedka in NYC ( www.fedka.com ) and
>CamerasRussian.com ( www.camerasrussian.com ) on the West Coast. Fedka
>(Yuri Boguslavsky) seems especially knowlegeable and straightforward.
>
>Has anyone had any experience with either of these two companies, or
>any other Fed/Zorki/Kiev experience to relate?
>
>TIA for any advice!
>
>Best regards,
>SteveR
>
>Stephen Rosenbach
>Arnold, MD



From: "Kumba" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Is buying a Hassy from Japan wise?
Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 

> I live here in Japan and I usually long for US mail order prices on
> photo gear.  It's not rare for US mail order prices to be less than
> HALF the Japanese store prices.  Japanese auction prices are usually

> it really depends on the item.  Hasselblads and Leicas are just as in
> demand here as anywhere else... and their prices reflect it.


Two weeks ago I bought a new Leica M6 for $1500, new 35 summicron asph for
$1100 and mint used 90 summicron pre-apo for less than $700 in Tokyo. That
is quite cheaper than any mail order USA price or any price here in Europe.
I almost bought totally mint without a single scratch 500c/m+magazine+80
planar CF for 170 000Y = $1450ish.

Kumba



From: Anthony Polson [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Why is Leica so expensive?
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 

[email protected] (EDGY01) wrote:

> I bought one to see what all the rage about Leicas is about.  It's a wonderful
> camera, and I use it quite a bit.  It's compact (like a 35mm camera is SUPPOSED
> to be) and it is very well put together.  Today's aspheric lenses are among the
> best designed and manufactured now.  I'm happy I bought one.  It has taken me
> back to the days of what photography USED to be like for me,--slow, methodical
> exposure determination, focus that I decide upon (and not some AF algorithm)
> and a joy to shoot.

Hi Dan,

To experience this, you don't need to buy a Leica.  Nor do you need to
pay Leica prices.  You can buy a Contax, Minolta or Nikon manual focus
SLR, or a Voigtl�nder Bessa or Konica Hexar RF rangefinder body for much
less money and have just as much fun.  So why spend Leica money?

I've postponed my purchase of a Leica M6 TTL 0.58, 24mm, 35mm and 90mm
lenses and a 15mm Voigtl�nder Color-Skopar for several years.  In the
meantime I get just as much *pleasure* from my two used Pentax Spotmatic
bodies and three SMC Takumar lenses, with an aggregate cost below $200.
I do my paid work with Nikon and Bronica gear which is much less fun. 

(G)

There are many good reasons for choosing a Leica M.  However, and with
the greatest respect - you have not yet mentioned any of them.  All you
have stated so far is an (unassailable) case for choosing a manual focus
camera, one with which I totally agree.  But why Leica?

-- 
Best regards,
Anthony Polson


From: [email protected] (leicaddict)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Voightlander Bessa R
Date: 6 Nov 2001 

I own both a Leica M6 and a Bessa-R/Nocton 50mm/f1.5. I also have a
Bessa-L with both the Heliar 15mm and Skopar 25mm. The Bessa-R is a
very decent camera, easily capable of providing the photographer
interested in fine photography with the tools he needs to see his
vision realized. At twice the price, the Voigtlander series would be
worth the money, at the street prices now being charged, they are a
steal. Enjoy your new system.


From: [email protected] (McEowen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 06 Nov 2001 
Subject: Re: Voightlander Bessa R

>Ability to use M lenses
>Rapid winder
>Anything else?

If you can afford Leica lenses you can afford a M body. The bodies are
relatively cheap compared to a bag full of M lenses. You can buy a user M4-2
for about $600-$750 -- not a whole lot more money than a Voigtsina.

OTOH, the screw-mount Voigtsina lenses are definately a "lower" (but not low)
way to get into interchangeable lens rangefinder shooting. Besides, THEY are
useable on an M body with an adapter so you can start with Cosina lenses and
gradually switch to the real deal as your finances improve. 

As for the rapidwinder, you can get a GREAT rapidwinder for any post M4-2
camera from Tom Abrahamson. They're about $400.


Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Petri Color 35 vs Rollei 35
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>



> From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 
> To: "'[email protected]'" [email protected]>
> Subject: RE: [Rollei] Petri Color 35 vs Rollei 35
> 
> Bob, 
> 
> Is this the same thing as with the Konica Hexar RF where Leica M and Konica M
> lenses are slightly difrerent?
> I mean is it due to the slight difference in the flange distance as I recall?
> 
> Peter K 


No.  The Leica CL lens has a different pitch on its rangefinder cam. The
camera was only intended for the three lenses made for it.  With wide angle
lenses you can probably get away with it since depth of field will cover
the focusing error, but normal and tele would probably not work well.

Bob 



Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Petri Color 35 vs Rollei 35
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>



> From: Jerry Lehrer [email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Petri Color 35 vs Rollei 35
> 
> No, not at all.  Any possible questions would
> be the result of a short "wheelbase" range-finder
> in the CL compared to the M series.


Jerry, 

It is not just that the CL has a shorter rangefinder base.  The
rangefinder cam pitch is different.  This was heavily discussed
when the CL was current and Leitz always pointed out that the
CL was made for use with CL lenses only.

Bob



From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What's the deal with Leica, anyway?
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 

"Mike Spadafora" [email protected]> wrote:

>If Leica's were less money I
>would probably get an M6, but I cannot justify the cost.  Do you get that
>much more image quality?

Nope.  What you get is a different kind of camera.  One that, in fact, you
might not even like much.

My best friend shoots with an F5 and a Hasselblad.  He's always had a letch
for a Leica, just because he'd heard of the mystique.  So I loaned him one
of mine for a trip to New York, and he despised it.  He hated the fact that
everything looked in focus through the viewfinder.  He hated the
coincident-image focussing system.  And the fact that the lens protruded
into the image area in the viewfinder just drove him wild.  The only quirk
of the Leica that didn't give him heartburn, oddly enough, was the film
loading.  That weekend completely cured him of his Leica envy.  In
contrast, you couldn't pay me to use his F5 - what a pig of a camera.

Proving yet again that cost justification is a very, very personal thing.

Paul

http://www.chefurka.com


From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: why no leica rentals? Re: What's the deal with Leica, anyway?
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 

[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote:

>The lack of rental options for Leica gear would seem to be a problem, 
>given the lens costs, for many semipro and pro photographers? This is one 
>reason I have opted to expand my hasselblad kit as rentals are locally 
>available (unlike say rolleiflex). Is there a reason that Leica rentals 
>seem to be relatively unavailable, versus other professional photo gear?

A couple of things spring to mind.

One is that Leica is a very low-volume brand, so most stores don't keep
much stock.  I know my local dealer has little on hand besides a couple of
bodies, 50 Summicrons and maybe a 35/2.0 and a 90/2.8.  With so little
stock, they only unpack what they absolutely need for demos, as it's a
waste of money to unpack new gear for a once-in-a-blue-moon rental.

The other is that most people who want to buy Leica gear (as opposed to
those who just want to test the lenses) know what they want, and generally
don't need rentals.  You know when you need a 35/1.4 or a 28/2.0 or a
24/2.8, and the reviews of all Leica M lenses are uniformly good, so why
rent it?   Just buy it.  If it's a one-shot deal, other brands are
available for rent.

I just can't imagine there'd be enough rental demand for a store to
bother..

Paul

http://www.chefurka.com


Date: Thu Jan 10 2002
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: why no leica rentals? Re: What's the deal with Leica, anyway?

Robert Monaghan wrote:

> The lack of rental options for Leica gear would seem to be a problem,
> given the lens costs, for many semipro and pro photographers?

Absolutely, and one of the reasons I have Nikon gear. My M3 rarely gets used for
work.

> This is one
> reason I have opted to expand my hasselblad kit as rentals are locally
> available (unlike say rolleiflex). Is there a reason that Leica rentals
> seem to be relatively unavailable, versus other professional photo gear?

Perhaps New York would be better? Not sure, but it seems that the sales of other
gear is more frequent, and possibly accounting for a greater supply of items.
Most places I have seen that stock Leica seem to sell very few, making it more
of a niche product. The pro shops here that rent usually have Nikon, often
Hasselblad, sometimes Mamiya RB, RZ, or 645, and occasionally Canon.

Most rental places handle lighting equipment rentals as well, with quite a
variety to choose. I have never heard of any pros using powerpacks and monoblocs
with Leica gear, though someone must be doing this.

If there was more demand for Leica rental gear, someplace would likely offer it.
I wish there was, because I would be happy to use it. It could also lead to more
equipment sales for Leica IMHO, because many could try before buying.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com>


From: "Leicaddict" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Bessa-R Portfolio
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 

The Nokton is a remarkable lens, all the more so considering its price. As
Edwin Putts http://www.imx.nl/index.html says, lens designers will be
studying the Nokton for some time to come. He also rates it higher than the
very fine Leica Summilux. I've read a lot of nonsense in this ng, by people
without a clue, about the current Voigtlander line. My hope is to dispel
some of the half-truths. Stay tuned for the Bessa-L/15mm, 25mm Portfolio.


"Photonutz" [email protected]> wrote 
>  "Leicaddict" [email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Quite a few people have commented on the Voightlander Bessa-R. Here are
> > examples of photos that I have taken with mine over the last 18 months for
> > those that are curious about the quality of the lenses and body. Naturally
> > any questions, comments, or critiques are more than welcome. I am also
> > working on a Folder of Bessa-L photos which should be up in a couple of
> > days. I really do think that these two cameras and associated lenses are top
> > drawer. Also, I thought I could be humble, but yea, it really isn't the
> > camera (whether Bessa, Leica, Nikon, or Pentax,) it's me. So enjoy!
> >
> > http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=164615
>
> I'm impressed by the contrast of the 50/1.4 Nokton. This is probably the
> third portfolio of Voigtlander Bessa images I have seen, and the quality
> of the lenses seem very good to me.



From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: why no leica rentals? Re: What's the deal with Leica, anyway?
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 

[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote:


>But I do think it would be possible to 
>create a slide based comparison of various lenses so folks could see if 
>they can select the lenses or brands that look best to them. It would also 
>settle arguments as to whether or not Leica is worth the $$, yes if you 
>can see the differences, maybe no if you can't ;-)

It might be definitive for some, but it definitely wouldn't be for others.
The attraction to Leica involves a lot more than just lens resolution.  As
you well know, most MF lenses will produce images that are superior to any
35mm enlargements of the same size.  This fact is not controversial.

The "Leica" experience (meaning Leica M, generally) is a gestalt of film
size, body design, body engineering, lens engineering and optical quality.
Proving that a given Leica lens is approximately equal to some other brand
in optical quality  (or a bit better or a bit worse) addresses only one of
the elements that draw people to the marque.

Most users are not drawn irresistibly to Leica in search of some holy grail
of lens resolution.  They are drawn to the package - the handling, the
viewfinder,the rangefinder, the feel of the mechanicals, the simplicity,
and the trustworthy optics.  Any of these may make the Leica system "worth
the $$" to a particular photographer.

Judging the worth of the Leica system by analyzing the optical quality of
the lenses strikes me as being akin to one of the blind men describing an
elephant by feeling its trunk.  The elephant is a whole animal, as is the
Leica.  To make a decision on a system by the analysis of one of its parts
is, frankly, foolish.

Paul
http://www.chefurka.com


From: [email protected] (Anon Terry)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: bessa "M7" killer clone? Re: Alternative to leica m6?
Date: 9 Jan 2002 

[email protected] (Jay B) wrote in...
> I think another big problem with Leica's sales prospects is the
> effectiveness of eBay and how that eats into their lens sales
> specifically.  As a recent M6 purchaser I have already purchased a
> used 35/2 and 50/2 and don't really forsee purchasing new lenses in
> the near term.  Granted I am still new to the system, but these lenses
> will serve me well enough and the cost savings is significant.
> 
> Feel free to point out the folly of this thought process...

Yet there are many who prefer a "virgin" lens, along with its almost
unheard-of no-fault warranty for three years (and an extra two years
of defects-only coverage for $75 or thereabouts), and are willing to
pay the premium for it.

Even though you're new to Leica and are apparently satisfied with your
35/2 and 50/2, there will come a day when you will be at least curious
about the 35/2 ASPH, 35/1.4 ASPH, 50/1.4, and 50/1 Noctilux.  It's not
a question of IF, but WHEN.  Trust me.  You might not foresee it now,
but these things have an ugly habit of sneaking up on you when you
least expect it.  It goes something like: well gee, these are serving
me "well enough"... but I wonder what the BEST is like?  Then it's up
to you to figure out if the Emperor is naked or not.

In terms of sales prospects, I think a far bigger problem for Leica
than eBay's apparent effectiveness is the Catch-22 of Leica build
quality.  The religious might argue that any given modern example is
nowhere near the build quality of legends like the M3 or DR Summicron,
but with normal use and regular maintenance I don't think any of the
modern models would have any problems lasting a lifetime or maybe
longer.  The fact that they aren't disposable (unlike your average
consumer third-party zoom) and are fully mechanical (easily
serviceable by anyone with the right skills and tools), means they're
in service for a LOT longer before needing replacement.  I don't know
if Leica minds having such a "problem" - they do accept for repair
almost any Leica ever made - so it may even appear that they're
perpetuating it and making some bucks off it at the same time.  So how
do they keep selling new products?

By using magic words like "3 years", "no-fault", "TTL", "APO", and
"ASPH."

;-)


From: [email protected] (DBaker9128)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 13 Jan 2002 
Subject: New Leica M on the way!

The LUG group is on fire with posts concerning leaked information from Solms
(courtesy of Luggite Mark Rabiner and others) regarding the new Leica M. This
time the rumors appear very credible and some Leica dealers are posting that
they will take $2000 deposits on the new Leica which should be here this
spring. Here are the specifics which I have gleaned to date:

- This is a film not digital camera.

- It will have aperture preferred automation available with flash sync at
speeds up to 1/1000 sec using pulsating flash technology similar to the Olympus
OM-3.

- The cloth shutter remains (good for quietness) but will have electronic, not
mechanical timing.

- Focus confirmation light and shutters speeds in the viewfinder.

- Will look very similar to the M6 TTL, which also stays in production.

- It will be designated the M7 and be shown at PMA.

- The cost will be around $2700.

Doug from Tumwater




Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 
To: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?


Several posters have suggested that the average (modal?) Leica user only 
owns one lens. I believe this, as similar studies of hasselblad optics 
show only a few lens per owner based on published lens sales, and over 
half the lenses sold are the normal lens alone. So I wouldn't be surprised 
to find out that very few leica owners have more than one lens. Here's the 
math and my sources: (see http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/mffaq.html)

the annual Leica M sales for 2000/1 shows 49.8 million euros on M system
sales (cameras and lenses), source:
http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/md/content/pdf/investorre/annualrepo/19.pdf

M sales = 49.8 million euros = $44 mil US (http://www.xe.com/ucc/ 
converter euros to $, 88 cents per euro

12,000 sales M bodies (6,000 R) in 1999 Erwin pots
http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/brondeath.html#1999

16% growth to 2000/1, so 1/6th, so add 2,000 M bodies for growth to 2000/1
12,000+2,000 = 14,000 M bodies  [growth stats in above pdf annual report]

price M6TTL.58 = $1,995 (B&H Price) [www.bhphotovideo.com]
price M6TTL.72 = $2,695 (B&H Price)

dealer markup on mailorder bodies is claimed to be 5-10%, so let us be 
conservative and just use $2k for average body cost with above prices;

14,000 M bodies (2000/1) * $2,000 body = $28 mil sales (worldwide) bodies

price 50mm f/2 Leica = $995 (B&H price) (call it $1k) [dealer markup?]

14,000 M lenses * $1,000 = $14 mil sales (worldwide) for leica lens, one 
per body sold, cheapest leica standard lens

total for sales of 14,000 bodies each with 50mm f/2 lens = $28 mil + $14 
mil = $42 mil for M6 body plus one lens

total sales for all M items, including lenses and accessories and bodies
= $44 mil (49.8 mil euros).

amount left to buy more lenses = $2 mil
if lenses cost $2,000 each, only 1,000 lenses for 14,000 units (1.07 
lens/kit)
if lenses cost $1,000 each, only 2,000 lenses for 14,000 units (1.14 
lenses/kit)

Even if we allow for some pretty large dealer markups on the lenses and 
bodies (and the claim is only 5-10% on mailorder on bodies and lenses)
we still are forced to conclude that there isn't much room here for sales 
of Leica lenses to be much over 1.2 lenses per average leica owner.

I am forced to conclude that the posters who claimed that the average 
leica owner had only the standard 50mm f/2 on the average were probably 
more correct than I thought. Naturally, I am not counting voigt-sina or 
konica or fed/zorki and clone lenses or remounted LTM and so on here. 

Does anyone have any lens production sales statistics which can help us 
understand just how many lenses leica owners on average have got? I hear a 
lot about those nifty 35mm f/1.4 and other optics, but it doesn't look 
like every Leica owner has run out and bought one ;-) Does anyone have 
figures on the average lens ownership by leica owners? Or if the above is 
wrong, can someone explain how and why, citing their sources?

thanks for the stats and info in advance!

bobm



From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]>
To: "'[email protected]'" [email protected]>
Subject: [Rollei] Cosina/Voigtlander 50mm F3.5 Heliar
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 


Picky picky! OK. Let me rephrase.  I wonder if Cosina would come out with a
medium format SLR with Voigtlander Heliar and other Voigtlander branded
lenses? I for one would love to see a 75mm F3.5 Heliar I could use with 
a MF SLR.

And Yes Marc, they have come out with a bayonet body (Bessa-T) and a 
new
Heliar M-mount 50mm F3.5 lens.

BTW, if you are interested there is an article on this and a review by 
Tom Abrahamsson on the camera and lenses.  Let me quote from the page:

"IMAGINE a lightweight M mount camera 1/4 the price of an M6, with a
rangefinder more accurate than the .72 M6. 

Mr. Kobayashi did, and then he built it." (Easy Marc, I can see the 
steam coming out of your ears)

Tom review indicates that it was one heck fo a camera and the Cosina made
Voigtlander lenses were equal, and in some cases better, than you know whose
lenses! Did I spell "whose" correctly!

Peter K

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc James Small [mailto:[email protected]]
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 5:06 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Re: [Rollei] New 50mm F3.5 Heliar
>
> Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:
> >Wonder if Cosina/Voigtlander has any plans for a medium
> format SLR with
> >interchangeable lenses?
>
> There is no company named "Cosina/Voigtlander".  There are
> Cosina products
> badged with the Voigtlander name, a practice legally correct
> but morally
> pretty questionable.
>
> Why not just call them Cosina?
>
> Besides, what has this to do with Rolleiflex?  Are Messrs
> Cosina cursing us
> with their products in QBM now?
>
> Marc
>=20
> [email protected]. 


Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Cosina/Voigtlander 50mm F3.5 Heliar
From: Bob Shell [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>


> From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]>
> Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 
> To: "'[email protected]'" [email protected]>
> Subject: [Rollei] Cosina/Voigtlander 50mm F3.5 Heliar
> 
> Tom review indicates that it was one heck fo a camera and the Cosina made
> Voigtlander lenses were equal, and in some cases better, than you know whose
> lenses! Did I spell "whose" correctly!

My review is not yet written, but it will agree with him.  The Bessa T
rangefinder is the best I have yet seen on a rangefinder camera.

BTW, you spelled who's wrong!

Bob


Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 
To: [email protected]
From: Marc James Small [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Cosina 50mm F3.5 Heliar

Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) wrote:
>       I wonder if Cosina would come out with a medium format SLR with
>Voigtlander Heliar and other Voigtlander branded lenses? I for one would
>love to see a 75mm F3.5 Heliar I could use with a MF SLR.  And Yes Marc,
>they have come out with a bayonet body (Bessa-T) and a new Heliar M-mount
>50mm F3.5 lens.
>  Let me quote from the page:  "  

I read Abrahamson's review some months back, Pete.  I have no doubt of the
quality of the Cosina merchandise -- and read Erwin's analysis of the lenses!

BUT these are not "Voigtlander" products and the lenses are NOT Skopars and
Heliars and Ultrons -- in fact, they have NOTHING to do with those fine
Voigtlander designs.

What makes me steam is the matter of merchandising integrity.  Cosina makes
fine products, quality cameras and outstanding lenses.  So why hide behind
the name of a company defunct these three decades which was located half a
world away?  Why not claim the credit for producing some really good stuff?
 And to have "Germany" on the box as if the lenses were actually MADE there
simply stinks.

Marc

[email protected] 


From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 

Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:

> I don't think I know a single Leica M owner who does not have at least two
> lenses. And I know a LOT of Leica M owners.

So there must be another LOT of Leica M owners not having a single Leica
lens. Hmm... All using Cosina, i guess...



From: [email protected] (McEowen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 28 Nov 2001 
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?

>I wouldn't be surprised 
>to find out that very few leica owners have more than one lens.

FWIW, I own two Leica bodies and four lenses (not counting the Cosina Heliar).
THerefore I'm a little higher than average with 2 lenses per Leica sold. Before
I got my M6 I had two bodies to fill the various rolls that one body now fills.
So then I had three bodies and four Leica lenses -- or a ratio of 1.333 lenses
per body. Boy, I'm sure glad I sold those two bodies and bought one. Now I can
say I'm a more serious Leica shooter cause I have 2 lenses per body instead of
just 1.333 . . . .


From: [email protected] (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 

> > I don't think I know a single Leica M owner who does not have at least two
> > lenses. And I know a LOT of Leica M owners.
> 
> So there must be another LOT of Leica M owners not having a single Leica
> lens. Hmm... All using Cosina, i guess...

I'm sure there are some, but most all of the Leica owners I know have at
least one or two Leica brand lenses. Remember that Leica has been around a
very long time and all the LTM and M-bayonet lenses, with very few
exceptions, work on the current M6TTL. 

It's also not necessary to buy only new lenses, either Leica or CV. A lot
of people also have various Russion-made lenses, Zeiss, Canon and other
lenses available in LTM. 

Godfrey


From: "Martin Francis" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 

Erm....
I'm assuming the thread refers to *new* M6s and *new* M-series lenses?
Because i'm sure a fair few used M6s are sold, as well as used lenses. Also,
Leica owners are often collectors, who will have owned M4s, M3s etc., and
presumably had lenses for them. And Leitz glass is damnably expensive to buy
new....
I wouldn't be wholly surprised if *more* Nikon/Canon bodies are sold than
lenses by their respective manufacturers.... I've been working in a camera
shop for nine months and I've sold only one new Canon lens, and no
Nikkors... but the reason for that is that few photographers realise the
difference between a good lens and a bad one. Leica is quite a different
matter, not least because there are no M-fit Sigmas.
Anyway, I'd recommend using (un)common sense when reading statistics.



Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 
To: [email protected]
From: Matthew Phillips [email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Cosina's 50mm F3.5 Heliar (a True Heliar design)


Umm, you may want to reread the page: the Bessa T body is an M-mount, but
the Heliar lens is threaded. The Heliar 101 kit is sold with a screw-to-M
mount adaptor. Cosina's "Voigtlander" line  of rf lenses are only made in
screw mounts, despite their introduction of the M-mount Bessa T body.


>Hi Rich,
>
>Its in M-mount according to their literature.
>
>Check out http://www.cameraquest.com/voig101.htm
>
>They have some good information on the new M-mount camera and new Heliar
>50mm lens.
>
>Peter K
>
> 
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rich Lahrson [mailto:[email protected]]
>Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 5:30 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: [Rollei] Cosina's 50mm F3.5 Heliar (a True Heliar design)
>
>
>Hi Peter, 
>     Is the 50mm/3.5  Heliar a Leica M or Leica screwmount?  The other 
>Cosina stuff is screw mount.  Thanks! Rich 
>"Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" wrote: 
>  


From: "Matt Powell" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: New Leica M on the way!
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 


"Bob Hickey" [email protected]> wrote...
>         My dusty but trusty crystal ball tells me, a battery dependent
> Leica should rack up sales in the high single digits.        Bob Hickey

Stephen Gandy posted to the Cosina-Voigtlander mailing list that the similar
rumor he's heard involves a combination of manual speeds and electronic
speeds - similar to the FE2/FM3A arrangement, I'm guessing?

> http://photos.yahoo.com/rollei711




Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2002
From: Jacques [email protected]>
Subject: "Look-A-Leica" FYI
To: [email protected]

Hi,

I just noticed your very nice, I may add, web page. Please be advised that the name "Look-a-Leica" was invented by me in 1971 and after the article came out in the Wall Street Journal Feb 12 1975, I went to a Patent attorney in Providence, RI and had the Name: "Look-a-Leica" copywrited for Leica clone products.

I have no problem anyone using the name and today it is all quite ancient history. I just would like to dampen the cavalier use of this product trademark. 

Further, I have built nearly 1000 Leica cameras that people still use and that do not correspond to any Leica model using Leica Parts and my parts. When a strange unit is found out there it is usually mine.

jacques-



From: daniel [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: handholding vs. high $$ for leica lenses Re: some points learned
Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 

I used Leica M6 + 50/1.4 lens for a long time, and last year (2001), I
gave to a friend since he had so many good dreams about my camera... It
was indeed a solid camera, but I found it too heavy to carry in the
hand(s) for candid photos for too long (i.e. half a day?). If with a
lens attached, it was too big for my pocket and it was rather awkward to
take out of the pocket in the "decisive moment". If I needed to use a
flash in doors, it made me slow down a lot, manual focus was fun, but to
take photos of my children, it was more or less a guess work. 

Honestly, the lens is no better than my canon AF 50/1.4  on "like to
like" handheld situation. 

I got one particular problem with Leica. I ruined so many films by
accident. How can I put it. Sometimes, I wind the film a little bit too
hard during the photo session, it breaks in the end of the film. Once
the film was inside the right side roller, it was very difficult to take
out or retrieve it.... the end of roller was like a six sharp pins
stopping your fingers to reach the film.  I do not know if anybody has
had such bad experience with Leica M6... With all my other cameras, I
have never had such problems. Canon auto rewinds on 35 frames, Olympus
has a back cover you can open it in a black safe bag, then to take the
film out easily. MF like my Mamiya RZ67, you would wind as many times as
you like when you finish the film whether it is a 120 back or 220 back.
It might be a small issue for other Leica owners, but I found very
depressed each time I had ruined a roll of slides, just because this
"silly" roller...

Alex

Robert Monaghan [email protected]> writes

>Hi Fred!
>
>re: med fmt options
>
>I guess it depends a bit on your med fmt cameras, some like my bessa
>folder and seagull rangefinders fit in a jacket pocket; my 6x9cm plaubel
>veriwide ultrawide panoramic is about as big and heavy as a Leica M6 kit
>of similar coverage, but features medium format capabilities and a super
>angulon lens (47mm SA) equiv. to 18mm lens on 35mm RF/SLR. It even uses
>the compact leitz finder ;-) rather a good buy circa $500 with the finder
>
>RE: Leica in a pocket - which leica?
>
>If you are talking about the Leica M6 and current optics, I find them
>surprisingly large and heavy, and as noted above, close to some med fmt
>kits. see mf/weights.html - at 2+ pounds, the later Leica Ms are in the
>same range as the 35mm SLR pentax spotmatics and minolta srt, let alone 
>today's lighter plastic bodies. 
>
>If you are referring to the older LTM leica III series bodies that fit in
>a pocket compared to rollei 35 series, which is what I suspect you are
>comparing, then I would agree with you more as they are smaller and more
>compact than even my med fmt folders. But the LTM older lenses would be
>rather less high resolution and contrasty than the new M6 cameras and 
>optics, and I presume more modern lenses would have some advantages too?
>
>But for the current M6 series, they don't seem that much smaller than the
>1970s compact 35mm rangefinders, which also had decent lenses on them and
>accurate rangefinders etc. based on my comparisons (and younger eyes) ;-)
>
>re: differences, visible to you, not to me, most folks?
>
>Fred, I suspect that you are one of those who CAN see these differences
>between a rollei 35 and leica M6 and optics. You have lots of years of pro 
>experience and a background in testing and comparing lenses, and I believe 
>you are one of those who can make such distinctions. I couldn't when I was 
>using Leica RF vs. backup japanese rangefinders up to 8x10" prints for
>publications as an archeological site photographer years ago. Nor could my
>colleagues and those who hired me. I can see the difference at 8x10"
>prints of good 35mm SLR optics (Nikon, minolta..) versus medium format
>cropped shots easily. There may well be some differences visible shot wide 
>open in the corners or whatever, but for many of these differences are 
>modest or hard to see reliably and occur rarely against the majority of 
>diffraction limited shots in the mid-aperture ranges, yes?
>
>RE: differences visible to all? a few?
>
>I am not sure if these differences are so easily seen by most folks,
>especially with handheld shooting techniques and the impact of camera
>shake. You are probably very high on the steady pro camera shooter range, 
>Fred. Yes? Both experience and other reported data and tests besides my 
>own suggest that camera shake is a great leveler of lens performance, esp. 
>at the low 1/30th and even 1/15th speeds often used by Leica shooters per 
>postings with wide open lenses. Issues like resolution and contrast 
>suffer with larger degrees of camera shake and handholding in extremis...
>
>re: blind lens challenge
>
>For the rest of us, the issue is hard to resolve whether we can see these 
>differences or not in our styles of shooting. The lack of leica rentals 
>and rarity of users willing to lend out their gear makes it very hard to 
>tell without buying into the system. I rented an SWC and liked it well 
>enough against my SLR lenses that I bought one; I can't do that test with 
>Leica, nor can many other potential buyers and users.
>
>It would be interesting for some like yourself who has both Leica 
>and Nikon gear (or Dilbertdroid2 or others) to create a set of blind lens 
>tests with unlabeled slides so the rest of us might be able to discern 
>whether we can see these differences well enough to sort out some randomly 
>numbered slides reliably. Again, I have done so in medium format with my 
>own tests (see http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/mf/blind.html and 
>blindtest.html). Before doing so, I thought the differences were a lot 
>bigger before I took the test myself, than I did afterwards ;-) ;-) 
>It might be interesting to see how many folks can really see these 
>differences, and how many can't (as posting reflect both types exist ;-)
>
>Finally, if these differences were really that visible, then I would
>expect every leica dealer and salesman to have sets of lens comparison
>slides or prints. If these differences are reasonably obvious, then they
>would be a major marketing point, yes? The reason I think this doesn't 
>happen is that such differences aren't visible to the majority of the 
>population, and I suspect, to me and my (aging) eyes ;-) And in general 
>shooting and especially handheld, most of us would not see the benefits of 
>Leica's superlative lenses due to factors like camera shake. 
>
>Now put those cameras and superb optics on a tripod and shoot high 
>resolution black and white films, and yes, I think the differences would 
>be obvious to me, probably even at 8x10" ;-) But handheld, and with color 
>films as most amateur photographers shoot over 94% of the time (per film 
>sales stats)? Nope, I bet the differences would be far less obvious to 
>most of us than to a pro shooter like you, Fred! ;-)
>
>grins bobm
-- 
daniel


From: Stephe [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Bokeh and Microcontrast. 101
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 

Joe Lacy wrote:

> And Fuji disposables,
> 
> Leitz/Leica/Zeiss optics seems to be mostly heard with this .

This is how they explain why a lens that is less sharp and contrasty should 
cost 10 times what jap glass does..
-- 
 
  Stephe


From: " E-MAIL" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Russian Cameras
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 

Robert, I'm suprised no one answered your request for information on
the Yahoo russian camera group.  http://www.fedka.com/Frames/Main_Frame.htm
Fedka has high end priced stuff, is in NY and will replace or refund.

http://www.sovietcamera.com.ua/ Priluk is on the low end of the price
scale, ships from Russia and (claims) his gear is checked by a repairman.

The cameras are users but show up with case and lens cap and most purchasers
have been happy ..http://www.russiansouvenirs.com/cameras.htm  Frank is an
American in Moscow and the prices are slightly above average but are
usually very good. I hope this gives you some comparisons, shipping will be
$10 to $15, Holding the camera in your hand and not waiting 3 weeks is
worth??

Kurt Arico
Calif.

[Ed. note: thanks to Kurt for sharing these pointers and tips!]




Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 
From: Paul Shinkawa [email protected]>
Subject: prices for Russian cameras
To: [email protected]

Robert:

I saw a request from you for current price information
on Russian cameras. You are welcome to my info.

October 2001: Moskva-5, e-Bay Buy-it-Now, U.S. dealer,
$47.00, B-.

November 2001: Iskra-I, U.S. dealer, $86.00, B.

November 2001: Kiev 4a (Helios 53/2.0), U.S. dealer,
$49.00, B-.

December 2001: Kiev 60, e-Bay, Buy-it-Now, U.S.
hobbyist, $105.00, B+.

January 2002: Kiev 4(Jupiter 8 50/2.0), e-Bay high
bid, U.S. dealer, $20.00, condition unknown.

Prices fluctuate greatly for Russian cameras and the
prices are not necessarily an indication of the value
received.

Good luck figuring this one out.

I received a digital camera for Christmas. Do you
still need a picture of a Hasselblad 1600F for your
website?

-Paul Shinkawa

[Ed. note: thanks again to Paul Shinkawa for providing these notes and prices!]


From: [email protected] (zhang)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: why no leica rentals? Re: What's the deal with Leica, anyway?
Date: 24 Nov 2001 

Paul Rubin [email protected]> wrote...
> [email protected] (Robert Monaghan) writes:
> > If the quality of the images that result from brand XYZ optics is not 
> > noticeably better (to the photographer if an amateur, or to the client for 
> > pros), then it might be hard to justify a substantial investment in those 
> > cameras and lenses when similarly acceptable results can be achieved with 
> > other cameras...
> 
> But what do you mean by "better"?  What if they're not better in any
> technical sense, but some photographer finds that photos he took with
> XYZ lenses tend to be better composed or have more interesting
> subjects than photos he took with other lenses?  Is it worth paying
> more for XYZ lenses in that case?

Hi,

The question why Leica is so expensive has been discussed extensively
on many forums in great length. But many people focused on their
attention on the technical aspects such as resolution,precision,high
production cost,etc. I do believe that a Leica classic rangefinder
camera is first grade in this aspect but this is not the reason why
they are so expensive.  It is the Leica name that made them so
expensive. If I had enough money, for example spending 2000 USD like
spending 20 USD by now, I would buy a Leica M6. It is like spending
thousands of dollars buying a Rolex Swiss mechanical watch which may
not be as accurate as a cheap quartz watch. The camera or watch now is
not only a tool but has become something to show one's personal taste.

In terms of sharpness of lens, durability of camera,etc. a 20 dollars
Russian Zorki can take pictures comparable to that of a Leica. One can
distinquish the difference of picture quality only with some sort of
scientific instruments but that has little practical meaning.


Zhang



From: "Leicaddict" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Bessa-L Portfolio
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 

For those of you interested in seeing what the Bessa-L, with the Heliar and
Snapshot Skopar, with viewfinders, is capable of. Who says ultra wide angles
can't be used for street photography. For those of you using telephotos or
hiding your camera for street photography, to cowardly to interact with your
subjects, think how close I was to take these photos. And everyone knew
their photo was being taken. My goal is to dismiss the misinformation spread
by the clueless about the current Voigtlander line. The current Voigtlander
line is simply outstanding, especially for the photographer on a budget who
seeks to explore a more personal type of photography.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=164966



Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Bessa-L Portfolio

Mr. Baseball looks like a good composition, but I would rather see it more
level, and less dutched. Quite a few of these are dutched, so was that the
intention?

Anyway, the coverage field of the 25 looks very close to most 28 lenses on the
market. There are quite a few 28s available used, so for me I would be less
inclined to get the Voigtl�nder. The 15 on the other hand is fairly low
distortion, and a real consideration. Most 15s on the market (either for Leica
or other SLR) are extremely expensive, and this would be a lens that I would
only use occasionally in my work.

Nice to see someone exploring super wide lenses. Happen to have the 21 mm at
all?

Also, thought you might like to see these from others:

http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4293626049> quick and simple, well
composed . . .

http://www.imagestation.com/album/?id=4293635745> same guy, some mixed Rollei
shots also . . .

http://www.euronet.nl/~ucklomp/index.htm?http%3A//www.euronet.nl/%257Eucklomp/bessal/index.htm>
takes a while to load everything, but worth the wait IMO.

http://www.john-bean.easynet.co.uk/gallery/index.html> only some are from the
15 mm

http://homepage.mac.com/hnohara/album1.html> a few with the 25 mixed in with
Leica 35 and 50 shots. Three albums here, only one with 25 mm samples.

Overall, I think a superwide is an unusual choice for portraits. It does give
the chance to compose and add more to the story, or show extreme isolation. I
would likely use a superwide more for industrial, shipping, and architectural,
which is why the low distortion interested me so much.

How well do these work with your Leica? Any play, or problems with the M
adapter? Thanks for any comments.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com>


Leicaddict wrote:

> For those of you interested in seeing what the Bessa-L, with the Heliar and
> Snapshot Skopar, with viewfinders, is capable of. Who says ultra wide angles
> can't be used for street photography. For those of you using telephotos or
> hiding your camera for street photography, to cowardly to interact with your
> subjects, think how close I was to take these photos. And everyone knew
> their photo was being taken. My goal is to dismiss the misinformation spread
> by the clueless about the current Voigtlander line. The current Voigtlander
> line is simply outstanding, especially for the photographer on a budget who
> seeks to explore a more personal type of photography.
>
> http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=164966



From: "Leicaddict" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: old leica lenses are great 'cuz they're bad?  Re: leica rentals
Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2001 

With you being an engineer and all, I would expect more in the way of  lens
contrast description. When we speak of contrast, aren't we really talking
about macro, and micro contrast. Or adjacent and overall contrast. Low
contrast or high contrast, per se, does not exist. Many Leica lenses are
designed to have "low" micro contrast at wide aperatures which will really
be useful at EV5 and below, and also helps to give Leica, that low EV,
available light "look." Just reading below, I really have to question
whether you have any clue at all about lens design. Perhaps, you wouldn't
mine educating the great unwashed about what contrast is. How is it that a
lens can have low microcontrast wide open (let's just say f1.0, for
argument) and normal microcontrast at f4.0. Incidently, this was explained,
by Leica lens engineers, in "Leica Fhotographic." A lot of it has to do with
index of refraction. But perhaps I'm misled?

"Robert Monaghan" [email protected]> wrote 
> But I am a bit bemused by an argument for using Leica or Leitz optics
> because they are "low contrast, soft at the edges, muted colours"..."all
> lens foibles that can be embraced and used in the M system" ;-)
>
> Isn't this saying the exact opposite of so many who advocate using Leica
> lenses because they are ultra-sharp, high contrast, unusually high
> resolution even to the edges, and yielding snappy colors? ;-) Now which is
> it? I'm so confusseeeed! ;-) ;-)
> grins bobm


From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What's the deal with Leica, anyway?
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 

Generally very well-put, but the X-sync speed of the TTL M6 maxes out
at 1/50 sec, though 1/60 is usable on earlier M's.

Also the recently introduced 1.25X eyepiece magnifier makes longer
lenses much more useable, especially on the 0.85X and M3 models.

And M bodies can use both M-mount (Leica, Konica) and LTM lenses
(Leica, Canon, Nikon, Voigtlander/Cosina and from various other makes
via adapter).  So you can go stratospheric with the latest from Leica,
great bang-for-the-buck with current Japanese offerings, or beat-up
multi-decade-old specimens.  In fact the range of choice is immense
when you include used/discontinued lenses.

Andrew 

Anthony Polson [email protected]> wrote:


>But there are downsides too, apart from the high cost of M bodies:  
>
>1) Hugely expensive lenses, even if bought used.  That's the downside of
>good Leica M residuals.  :-(
>
>2) Weak performance with telephoto lenses.  The Leica M does not attempt
>to compete in wildlife/action photography with long telephoto lenses,
>and even a 135mm lens is pushing against the envelope.  However, to
>those who recognise the speed and accuracy of coupled rangefinder
>focusing, there is no better camera than a rangefinder for shooting with
>wide angle lenses.
>
>3) Maximum shutter speed only 1/1000 sec.
>
>4) Maximum flash synch speed only 1/60 sec., rendering the TTL flash
>worthless for most situations where daylight fill flash is needed.



From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 

Robert Monaghan wrote:

> [snip]

> If I have made an error in my calculations, quotations from sources (cited
> with links) or assumptions, I would be happy to get updates or any
> corrections. [...]

Your math does include several assumptions.

Like the one that lenses and bodies have a similar lifespan. The
"statistics" could equally well be made to show that Leica M cameras are
really poorly built compared to Leica lenses. Why else would sales figures
show such a low (in comparison to expectations) ratio of lenses sold to
cameras sold? Must be because cameras need replacing far more frequently.
Assuming (;-)) that an average Leica owner has a "classic" set of 3 lenses,
and taking your 1:1.2 sales ratio as a premisse, you can work out how much
faster Leica M cameras wear out than Leica M lenses, or how many Leica M
bodies are worn out per Leica lens.

Then there is the assumption that the sales figures from the period you used
are representative, and can be used to extrapolate.  Perhaps most of those
bodies sold during that period were bought to replace worn bodies (see
above) or were bought to upgrade from an earlier model (what is the
frequency of body upgrade sales compared to that of lens upgrade sales?), by
owners who already have a plethora of old, yet still very good Leica lenses
(when does a lens need upgrading?)? Or perhaps Leica bodies are more
collectible than Leica lenses?

And how about using non-Leitz lenses on Leicas? I can understand how (not
why) some Leicaphiles would not count them as a "lens owned", but you never
know; tucked away somewhere in the dark recesses of Leica-ownership there
might well lurk the secret, yet massive ownership of dozens non-Leitz lenses
per Leica M. Would play havoc with your statistics. Yet you can't rule it
out.




From: R. Saylor [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 

[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote:

>I think you can be a serious Leica shooter with just one body and one
>lens, quite frankly ;-) Ditto Hasselblad and so on. And for most of us,
>even one M body and one lens would be a serious investment in a hobby too.
>But most of us don't think of the "average"  Leica owner as only having 
>one lens, and that's what I found interesting about my study & 
>calculations...

Your figures may be correct, but they seem surprising.  I bought one
used M6, one new lens (Leica), and two used lenses (one Leica and one
Leitz), and I thought that was about average.  

I get the impression that people who make do with a single lens either
(1) are just starting out with a Leica system and are planning to add
more lenses, (2) are basically minimalists who like the simplicity of
a single lens system, or (3) don't really use their cameras very much.
(The body, sitting untouched in a glass case, looks much more
impressive if there's a lens attached, but you only need one lens for
that.)

Richard


From: [email protected] (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 

I am still perplexed at the point of this exercise and don't think your
numbers have any particular validity. Why do you treat them as gospel? 

Most people who shoot with Leica M cameras buy infrequently and use what
they have for a long time. They might buy a new body for the advantage of
a new feature, they might or might not buy a new lens with that body, they
might buy a  new lens only, or a used body to supplement their existing
kit of Leica M gear. 

I've done all of the above at various times. 

Yes, the equipment lasts well, but anything/everything wears out. It's
just a camera, after all, not some princely immortal sacred object. A lot
of Leicas see very heavy use and are fairly worthless at the end of it.

What are you reaching for? or is this some complex and subtle trolling
effort? I see you've continued into another phase with SLR counts. Perhaps
the PMA has hired you to do analysis or something?

If what you're trying to say is that most people don't buy a lot of lenses
and therefore manufacturers like Leica could well afford to produce a
model with just one fixed lens, well duh.. They already do that .... The
Minilux, Minilux Zoom, C1, ZX2 models fit that niche very well, as do so
many other fixed lens cameras.

Godfrey


From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
Date: 29 Nov 2001 

Robert Monaghan [email protected]> wrote:

> Perhaps Leica should come out with a fixed lens Leica M with 50mm f/2, 
> greatly cutting costs and improving accuracy (since there is only one RF 
> cam set?), if a large number of folks might buy in, since that is what 
> most of their buyers seem to end up?  

I'm not sure it would be "greatly cutting costs."  Most people by the time
they have to fork out $3000, won't care about +-$200.

But it would be greatly limit options for a buyer/user.  A lot of people
like the heart warming thought that they can (if they ever wanted to):
	1. buy incrementally (Leica body, later some lens)
	2. replace current lens with newer/older lens of same type in case
		of either upgrade or repair
	3. buy extra lens 

A similar case is the TV+VCR fixed combos, which don't sell very well.
Most people like the ability to choose, rather than limited options.

I think I would agree with the bimodal theory of lens/user distribution.
There could be several explanations for this.  First mode, one user one
lens can be explained a) people who are rich enough to buy Leica equipment
and it's well within their means.  They may not great photographers, maybe
not even have photography for a hobby, but they'll buy the best there is
because they can.  No need for a second lens when all they do is snapshot
kind of photos.  b) people who can afford it but only marginally, serious
amateurs or not, are magically affected by the Leica mystique, bite the 
bullet and get a body and a lens, thinking they'll get more later.  They
really just want to try Leica equip. and see what it's all about.  They
get so and so pictures but then don't feel compelled to buy another lens
because most often its cost to benefit ratio.  The other mode may be covered
by professionals, very serious amateurs who believe Leica equip. isn't 
replaceable by other equip. (for them), both rich or not.  Of course, in
the case of professionals equip. can be acquired and tax deducted, so they
don't have to be that well off.

Of course this is just pure speculation on my part, as I don't have any
hard data to back up my statements.  But hey, I just blew 15mins.

Best,
Relu.


From: "David Kieltyka" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 

Robert Monaghan [email protected]> wrote:

> I think you can be a serious Leica shooter with just one body and
> one lens, quite frankly ;-) Ditto Hasselblad and so on. And for most
> of us, even one M body and one lens would be a serious investment
> in a hobby too. But most of us don't think of the "average" Leica
> owner as only having one lens, and that's what I found interesting
> about my study & calculations...

Another possibility is that people may buy more than one body for use with a
small collection of lenses. This is what I do. I'd much rather use two
cameras at a time, each with its own lens, than use a single camera and swap
among lenses. I have two bodies for each of my SLR systems and no more than
five lenses per system (no zooms). Now when it comes to rangefinders I go
with one lens per camera!

Of course I buy all my stuff used too, which probably makes me a non-entity
as far as these stats are concerned. :-)

-Dave-



From: [email protected] (Paul Farrar)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
Date: 30 Nov 2001 

Robert Monaghan [email protected]> wrote:
>I think you can be a serious Leica shooter with just one body and one
>lens, quite frankly ;-) Ditto Hasselblad and so on. And for most of us,
>even one M body and one lens would be a serious investment in a hobby too.
>But most of us don't think of the "average"  Leica owner as only having 
>one lens, and that's what I found interesting about my study & 
>calculations...
>
>And many of us here in rpm35 are probably in the top 5% or even 1% of
>photo gear owners. So anecdotal testimonials are interesting, but actual
>production data or stats on the lenses sold would be more compelling. For 
>the hassy C lens series, the stats are clear that half the lenses made 
>were the 80mm, and the average owner only had that one lens. So I don't 
>feel surprised that the same might be true of Leica, as a high end kit.
>
>If I have made an error in my calculations, quotations from sources (cited
>with links) or assumptions, I would be happy to get updates or any
>corrections. But my math doesn't support an average of 2 leica lenses or
>more per owner, as I have shown, unless you believe that there are very
>high markups on the B&H mailorder prices rather than the 5-10% mail order
>industry averages? 
>
>Why this is important, to me anyway, is that it greatly shifts the utility
>function for the average (i.e., one lens and one body) Leica owner. Let us
>say that 80% of these owners only use the normal lens, as an example. Then
>one might question the utility value of the interchangeable lens feature,
>which is one of the major benefits of Leica over fixed lens rangefinders
>(which otherwise have benefits like extended flash synch, lower cost etc).
>
>Perhaps Leica should come out with a fixed lens Leica M with 50mm f/2, 
>greatly cutting costs and improving accuracy (since there is only one RF 
>cam set?), if a large number of folks might buy in, since that is what 
>most of their buyers seem to end up?  
>
>An alternative concern is that if the lens production figures for Leica
>lenses is so small, as suggested here, then losses to Cosina and
>voigtlander and konica are all relatively larger impact ($ and production
>size wise) than might at first appear. 
>
>Granted, there are other lenses used on Leica bodies, rather more I would 
>think after seeing these figures and calculations than many "true=blue" 
>leicaphiles might be happy to admit. If so, then it would probably be 
>useful to avoid "scaring off" potential Leica buyers to point this out 
>more strongly, and say, hey, you can shoot 80% of your photos with the 
>basic camera and one leica lens. For those less often used lenses, you can 
>shoot with Konica or other lenses. The insistence that these lenses are 
>not a viable option for Leica users for subtle quality and other reasons 
>flies in the face of what seems to be the facts found here, that few Leica 
>users actually have access to the other Leica lenses being recommended. If 
>so, then we should recognize these facts, advise newbies that not having 
>$10k in Leica lenses is not a requisite for getting into Leica, and that 
>they'll be in lots of good company if they only buy the basic Leica and 
>one lens...
>
>bobm

Here's an example of a low lens/body ratio Leica photographer.

http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/v20/msg02486.html

Paul


From: Anthony Polson [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 

Skip [email protected]> wrote:
> 
> I see your point and raise you one. (G) 
>
> Who but serious amateurs and pros buy Leicas? 

* Collectors.
* Badge snobs.
* People who always want "the best", even when a Leica doesn't suit
  their ability and/or their type of photography.
* People who see owning a finely-engineered camera as conferring status.

Note that there are examples of each category regularly posting on here.

-- 
Best regards,
Anthony Polson


Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002
From: Jacques [email protected]>
Subject: Look-A-Leica
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]>

Eastern block stuff: about 10 years ago there were growing reports that many experimental leica, (zeiss and others too), products were made during WWII and given to people in the field. These cameras were found in farmland barns and village attics by westerners that traveled in the eastern block region after the soviets. i have learned of cases where lots of modern nikons were traded to unaware village people who might have something cooked up for the SS leica, zeiss......etc. 
the clone, though, that people ought to aware of is the very many super ikonta 6x6cm variants. because of the gear ratio in the counter/winder mechanism the gears must be hardened and well fitted....at least the last gear in the train. its it a very nice camera to use, (fuji has been able to capture its magic....i think), but unless it is original it will not last long under the pressure of the film transport. it was common place to see russians selling those around the country at photo-fleas......

......later


 
From: [email protected] (Bushpilot)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Leica M6 Forum change of address & name
Date: 17 Jan 2002 

Hi Folks!

Just to let you know that the Leica M6 Users Forum has changed names
to the Leica M Users Group and therewith all Leica Ms are now
discussed there. The new URL is:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MUGers/

All the best, Duncan


From: "Austin Franklin" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Rolleiflex GX 12/24 capability
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2001 

> Parts manufactured with tight tolerance operate smoothly.

That is not necessarily true.  It depends on what you are paying attention
to.  There may be no requirement for "smooth" operation, yet tolerances are
very tight.

Bob even said that the Leica factory purposely "wears in" their lense
helical just to make them "smoother", and wear means larger clearance...



To: [email protected]
From: "J-2" [email protected]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] bessar r

>From what I heard with the Bessa design, two shutters are used to prevent film fogging from light leaking through the metal blade shutters.  Unlike the (cloth) horizontal shutters used in almost all LTM/LM rfs, the vertical metal blade shutters (Copal?) installed in the Bessa may leak light between the blades.  In an SLR, the reflex mirror blocks the light, but with the gaping RF throats, a secondary shutter has to be installed for the same purpose.  The "Yasuhara" (?) LTM rf which came before the Bessa suffered from this defect.

I compared the rear length of the Industar 50/22 with the Jupiter 12.  The Industar is about as long or even a tad longer, making it unwise to have in a collapsed state on the Bessa.  The Summitar has a shorter rear length and could perhaps be used with it.  The same note may apply with
Leitz Elmar 5 cm lenses.  The collapsible Canon Serenar also has a short (collapsed) rear length, and may be used as well.

Speaking of Russian lenses, Jupiter 8's and 12's tend to be accurate enough, assuming that they underwent no bad repairs before they were sold. Same comments about the Industar 61 and 26. It's the collapsible ones which give most cross-compatibility problems.  They're easy to fix, if you have means to check their working distances.  Usually, inserting paper shims where the lens block is connected to the rest of the lens is all what it takes.

Jupiter 9's could be problematic as they could be easily miscalibrated from improper reassembly after CLA.

Jay
[email protected] wrote:

>I suggest that you check the lens. Russian RF std. lenses which came with
>a camera were often calibarated for that camera, that camera being based=20
>calibarated on an "ideal " one. That said, with soviet QC, it was often off=
>.
>
>Jay of this list will tell you how many of his soviet RF lenses were miscal=
>ibarated.
>
>Message: 11
>   Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 
>   From: "Frank Earl" [email protected]>
>Subject: Bessa R Question
>
>To go with several Russian rangefinders,  I finally bought a Bessa R a few
>months ago.  After looking at the prices on used Leicas and Canons in LTM, =
>I
>decided to spend an extra $100 and get a new camera with TTL metering.  I
>have been using the Jupiter 50/2 lens on the camera and it seems to be
>working well.  The 35mm Jupiter lens will not fit because the Bessa uses 2
>shutters and there is not enough depth for the back of the lens.  I would b=
>e
>very careful with collapsible lenses on the camera.  The summitar might fit
>but the industars probably won't.
>
>Now to the question.  The vertical alignment of the rangefinder is off.  I
>have been told that the adjustment is under the flash shoe, but I cannot
>figure out how to remove the flash shoe. There are no screws.  Since Cosina
>seems to make a lot of low end manual cameras for a lot of labels, maybe
>someone has dealt with removal of a flash shoe with no screws before.
>
>Thanks.



From: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2001 
Subject: Re: [Rollei] OT: Leica rant (long)
To: [email protected]

I've been using my M6 with the 24mm lens and I recently acquired a viewfinder 
to go with it. Black plastic.   OK;  I changed  to my 35 mm lens and tried to 
take off the viewfinder. Snap! Instantly the viewfinder and its shoe parted 
company. After close examination I discovered that the shoe was fixed to the 
finder with a few small plastic location pins and some glue-- just like a 
model airplane!  So I went down to the local Leica dealer (Tamarkin), thought 
I'd look at one of those nice silver ones-- which must be made better than 
the cheaply made but not so cheap to buy ($250) plastic ones, even if it 
didn't match my camera. 

   Well! When I told the guy what happend, he replied, "It happens to all of 
them." And the silver ones? "Oh, they haven't been made in about 10 years. 
The only ones now are black plastic, and the silver ones, if you can find 
them on the used market, go for about $500."

   It's sad that Leica now makes junk. Arthur



To: [email protected]>
From: "Victor Helis" [email protected]>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 
Subject: [camera-fix] The link to KMZ (Zenit)

Hi, guys!

Can be to somebody will interestingly: the link to a site of Krasnogorsky
Mechanicheski Zavod (Zenit) http://www.zenit.istra.ru/index.html,
"This is a Russian cameras home site: ZENIT, Zorki, Moskva, Iskra, Horizon
(Horizont), Foton, Narciss, Droog, Junkor, Crystal, Kometa, FT,
Photosniper, Panofot, Rodina, Astra, Start and lenses: Helios, Zenitar,
Variozenitar, Telezenitar, Mir, Industar, Era, MTO... and other
KRASNOGORSKY ZAVOD production from its authors -- KMZ Research & Design
Center"

There are a forum and original instructions to many cameras
http://www.zenit.istra.ru/mans/. All on Russian :-), but there are the
on-line  interpreter E-Lingvo and Promt.

Victor.
Togliatti, Russia.

P.S.  Here, in Russia many people with a pain have perceived events of
September 11.
The gangsters in Chechnja are the same evil. The Americans, I
sincerely sympathize you.

 

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 
To: [email protected]
From: Marc James Small [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rangefinder

Philippe Tempel wrote:
>So you went for the Russian (Jupiter?) glass.  Why not
>go for used (or new) Cosina (Voitlander) glass?  It
>should fit since it's Leica screw mount, no?  I have
>seen the Kiev 4a and it does look like a nice camera.
>I don't recall seeing a 4am, though.  What does it
>provide over the 4a?

On the first point, cost is the issue.  The Jupiter line are fine lenses
(bearing in mind the customary caveat on SPS QC/QA, of course!) and are
available for peanuts compared to the cost of other LTM lenses.  A solid
Jupiter-3 should, for all intents and purposes, perform close to the 1.5/=
50
Cosina lens, for 1/3 the price of admission.

On the second point, the Kiev 4M and 4aM were the last variants of the
Prewar Contax RF line to be produced in the former Soviet Union, leaving
production in 1986, or so they say.  They differ from the 4 and 4a in an
increased use of plastic, reduced engravings, and a rewind handle instead
of a knob;  the M's share the 1/1000" top speed with the late 4/4a.

Marc

[email protected]  


From: [email protected] (Paul Farrar)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
Date: 30 Nov 2001 

Robert Monaghan [email protected]> wrote:
...
>
>The cost of a backup Leica body is rather serious ($2k new+). As a
>nikon owner, I have kits with a pro body (F2..) and a FE and a nikkormat
>(for old lenses). But the backup body is only $100 to $200 or so used,
>which is not available in the Leica M series - at least from Leica (and
>the M series clones aren't quite the same, even the Bessa-T etc.).

Nobody pays $2000 for a non-instant-"collectible" body. There is a 
semi-permanent $200 rebate; so, at full USA list, it's $1795. If
you buy on one of the regular Leica Days (you don't have to be present
at the store, but your payment does), there's a 10% discount before
the rebate which drops the price below $1600. Also Leica has a minimum
advertised price agreement, so many dealers advertise one price only,
but tell you a lower price when you buy. Sam Shoshan will sell you
a full USA M6TTL for $1730 before you collect the $200 from Leica. But
only next Monday, which is a Leica Day.

I don't think Leicas have ever been cheaper, in real terms, than they are
now. They are not cheap, but if you look at some of the things people
spend their money on... (An office mate just bid $1500 on a coin.)

Paul



From: "David Kieltyka" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 

Robert Monaghan [email protected]> wrote (edited):

> Again, my bet is that this NG and its Leica owners are a very
> small minority of Leica owners, and that the real stats of
> ownership would be quite startling in terms of how many have
> only one body, and only one leica made M lens, and so on.

I don't doubt this. One lens is all you really need after all. The rest is
just self-indulgence. :-)

> That might also be helpful, for many newbies, to recognize that
> they can get a Leica and do a lot of photography with just the
> one lens, rather than buying kilobucks of lenses or limiting
> themselves to Leica lenses as the others are dismissed as junk,
> when the reality may be that many Leica users are using exactly
> those non-leica lenses, again reinforced by the low lens sales
> suggested by the Leica M series sales data...

Veering off subject a bit...count me in as one of the Leica owners who
rarely mounts a Leica lens on his rangefinder cameras. One of the cool
things about the old Leica screwmount is that so many lens makers offered
products for it. You can indulge and experiment without breaking the bank.
Personally I get as much enjoyment from simply using such gear as from the
resulting photos. Also, when I put my old 85mm f/2 Nikkor on an old
screwmount Leica camera I feel a historical connection back to David Douglas
Duncan, who used the very same gear to create the seminal Korean war photos
that put Nippon Kogaku (Nikon) on the map. As I'm not at all utilitarian
when it comes to photography this sort of thing is more important to me than
whether or not the Nikkor is the sharpest 85mm lens out there. (For the
record it's damn good.)

-Dave-



From: [email protected] (Iskandar Taib)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
Date: 1 Dec 2001 

Robert Monaghan [email protected]> wrote:

>but as I've noted, the SLR plus backup is less of an issue, since most SLR 
>lines have a number of low cost entry level cameras costing only a few 
>hundred dollars for the body (or circa $100 used in many cases). 

Another reason for the low lens counts for SLRs is that many people
who buy SLRs aren't any more than casual photographers. Don't know how
true this is today, but it was definitely true back in the late
70s/early 80s. I knew several relatives and friends who owned the one
SLR they used for taking family photos. Typically one lens, one flash
unit, and it sat on the shelf in the study in it's case except for a
few days a year. Sounds silly, but that's what it was like back
then. I myself never ended up buying an extra lens for my first ever
SLR, a Topcon RE. And I ran a lot of film through the poor thing.

(Then the Olympus XA and Canon Sure Shot came along - things are
probably different now..)


-- 
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: [email protected]  |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Home page: http://bigwig.geology.indiana.edu/iskandar/isk2.html


From: [email protected] (SAPasap)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 01 Dec 2001 
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?

>>>will sell you
a full USA M6TTL for $1730 before you collect the $200 from Leica. 

>>I don't think Leicas have ever been cheaper, in real terms, than they are
now.

There is something to this, and it flies in the face of the 'conventional
wisdom' of justification of high initial prices because they hold or increase
their value.

In 1990 when I bought my first M6 body new, with US Passport and $500 rebate,
my out-of-pocket cost from a NY discount dealer was $1800.  You could buy a
grey market for about a bill less.

Once the rebate was off, they were back to $2295, US New York discounted price.
 After the mid-90s or so, Leica M6 bodies w/US warranty, discounted NY
advertised prices were up to to $2795!!!  Then the prices plummeted.

I'd be hard pressed to get much over $700 wholesale, or probably much over
$1200 retail, now for a very nice 'classic' M6 body which I had bought then.

I have no idea how this compares proportionately by percentage with other
consumer goods by other camera manufacturers.

As an aside, a Rolex bought in 1990 would have seen a definite increase in
value.


From: [email protected] (McEowen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 01 Dec 2001 
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?

 Well, you might still want to carry two, with different lenses on
each, so you can use either at will, without having to swap
lenses. They're supposed to be fairly small and light right? >>


Compact but not really light. Remember, these are still all metal bodies and
components. They were relatively light compared to Nikon F/F2 and Canon F-1
bodies of old but by today's standards they're not light.

The main reason I carry a second body is to have color in one and black and
white in the other. Since they don't have film cassette windows (and the
non-metered ones don't have ASA dials) I find it easier to just designate one
body as the color camera and the other as the T-max camera . . . 



From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Poor Mans Leica ?
Date: Sat, 01 Dec 2001 

[email protected] (Jay B) wrote:

>Anthony Polson [email protected]> 
>> [email protected] (Dilbertdroid2) wrote:
>> 
>> You may find some enlightenment about the optical quality of the Konica
>> lenses (Hexar and RF) at Erwin Puts' site.  
>> 
>> I feel sure you will already know the URL.
>
>What is that URL?

Go to http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/leicahome.html for the Leica stuff,
and http://www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/indexj.html for the non-Leica.

Some people feel Erwin is in Leica's pocket, but I'm not one of them.  I
think his enthusiasm for current Leica products causes him to overstate
their benefits, but his reviews of non-Leica lenses IMO show him to be a
quite objective reviewer.  OTOH, I've never found reason to dispute any of
his Leica reviews based on my own experience with the lenses.

Keep in mind that, even more than with his Leica reviews, the non-Leica
tests appear to be based on single samples.  With lenses like Konica or
Cosina/Voigtlander that sell for normal consumer-type prices, there may be
more sample variation than one finds with Leica lenses, so the reviews are
probably less authoritative.  My 90/3.5 APO-Lanthar, for example, has
serious focussing problems that were not present in Erwin's sample.

Paul
http://www.chefurka.com



From: [email protected] (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 

I have 2 M bodies and 5 lenses. My usual shooting kit when walking about
is 1 body and 2 lenses, something like 15/35 is most common, but 24/50 I
use a lot too. My most common travel kit is 1 body and 3 lenses, last trip
was 15/35/90 (but lately I feel it would ideally be 21/35/75).

One of the most important reasons for having two bodies, for me, is that I
often have one body loaded and want to shoot with a different film in the
middle of it. Rather than doing the unloading/reloading shuffle, it's much
easier to just grab another body and load it. When I'm traveling, I rarely
want to spend the weight to carry a second body, I just don't think about
a body failing much.

You are fighting against some heavy preconceptions. I don't usually think
of it as "oh, i'm buying these cameras for their legendary reliability and
durability" ... I buy a camera because I like the lenses available for it
and it fits my hands, I find it easy to work with. *None* of the many
cameras I've owned over the past 32 years has ever proved particularly
troublesome or needed much shop time, unless I bought it old and in need
of service to begin with. So any particular advantage the Leica might have
is of relatively minor consideration in that regard. I don't carry or
shoot with a Leica because I think it allows me some special status or
anything like that ... I shoot with a Leica because I like the pictures it
helps me make. Nothing else is particularly important. 

Godfrey

[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote:

> Wow! Thanks for your note, yet another multiple body example. I am curious 
> why so many folks have multiple Leica M bodies, your example of each of 
> you having two bodies each, plus one with your daughter, is surprising to 
> me. Usually there aren't many couples where both are avid photographers? 
> But you are right that the effect is a low average lens sales per M body, 
> but larger number of lenses available within the family ;-) congrats ;-)!
> 
> I guess I have to rework my prejudices here? I have been told and assumed 
> that one of the benefits of Leica's great ruggedness and quality was that 
> you only needed one camera "for a lifetime" of service as a major selling 
> point. But it seems many serious leica users go for multiple M bodies. 
> 
> I have also had a prejudice that many Leica owners were more like HCB,
> seeking out the "decisive moment" with just one camera and one lens in PJ
> and street photography work. If you did have a leica kit, it would be a 
> body with two (35/90?) or three (28/50/90?) lenses as typical. yes? For 
> travel and street work, I would have assumed that multiple bodies (at 2+ 
> lbs or a kgm each) would be hard to justify, given leica's reliability and 
> cost and the risk of theft etc. ? 
> 
> thanks for your input - bobm


From: "David Kieltyka" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: stats: only 1.2 lenses per leica M sold?
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2001 

Robert Monaghan [email protected]> wrote:

> Actually, I'm trying to suggest that the steady state may have
> changed, and that this is one way to test it. The change is the
> new competitors selling lower cost lenses (konica, voigt-sina)
> which might be siphoning off sales of higher cost leica lenses.
> This would explain the low M series lens sales per M body,
> and the low $$ sales of $3,000 US$ per M body sold, per
> Leica's annual report ($44 mil /12-14,000 M bodies). But we
> need older data on sales to test this idea. If true it is bad news
> for Leica, yes?

Assuming your stats are accurate, Bob, I wouldn't overlook Usenet groups
like this one and the Internet as additional contributing factors. Before
the Net and cool sites like Stephen Gandy's CameraQuest I had no idea there
was such a plethora of non-Leitz Leica Thread Mount lenses out there. I've
been using my M2 since the early 1970s but until a few years ago I'd never
heard of a Carl Zeiss lens in LTM. Now such lenses-nearly all of 'em
purchased online-make up the core of my rangefinder kit. Since these lenses
are fairly rare, and thus not exactly cheap, their purchase may well have
come at the expense of one of the latest aspherical Leica optics.

-Dave-



From: [email protected] (Ilanshanon)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 02 Dec 2001 
Subject: Re: Leica M2 vs. M3

>I'm looking to buy a second hand body and have been advised to
>> look for an M2 or M3 with a serial number of 1000000 or greater.

I've had 2 M2's and never had a problem with them.  If well-maintained, a 40
year old Leica M can be just as reliable as a brand new M6.  I now shoot an M6
ttl.  The advantage of the M2 versus the M3 is that you have frame lines for
35mm lenses, which is significantly advantageous over using a bulky 35mm lens
with bugeyes for the M3.   And most Leica users tend to use their 35mm lens for
the majority of their shooting.  Regarding getting a non-ttl M6 because of the
built in light meter, I would certainly recommend it if you can afford to do
so, simply because of the convenience of the built-in light meter.  Another
option, however, which I used, is to get the Voigtlander meter that clips onto
the flash shoe of any Leica M.  It isn't synchronized to the shutter speed like
the Leica M clip on meter, but it is current technology and highly accurate. 
It costs about $200 new.  So if you can find an M2 which is $200 or more less
expensive than an M6, this still makes sense.  Bottom line:  You can pick up a
good user M2 for $600-$900, but you may want to add the additional $$ for a
clipon meter.  You could pick up a good user M6 non-ttl for $1100-$1300. 
Finally, learn as much as you can about what to look for in these bodies. 
Shutter curtain must be solid with no pinholes, view finder must be clear and
accurate, and shutter speeds (especially slower ones) must be accurate. 
Surface marks aren't a problem, although they detract "collector" value. 
Dings, especially near the rangefinder, could indicate possible damage to the
rangefinder mechanism.  Ebay sellers with good ratings who deal quite a bit
with Leica are one option, or dealers who deal with quite a few Leicas are
another option.  And once you learn to use a Leica M and see the results,
you'll love it.

Good Luck:
Ilan shanon


From: [email protected] (Timo Geusch)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: retrofocus Leica M lenses prejudices was Re: leica M weight
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 

Robert Monaghan [email protected]> wrote:

> I agree with you that the M series rangefinder lenses are generally
> smaller, but partly that's offset since so many SLR lenses are 
> compact zooms replacing a number of lenses. But the collapsible lenses
> were neat and compact; closest in SLR lenses is nesting 400mm tamron ;-)

Speaking of SLRs I was actually surprised that a Contax 139 body feels
smaller and is certainly as light or lighter than an M6. If I had the
money to invest in another expensive system (and if the camera had a
viewfinder that allowed me to focus properly, which is the main problem)
then I might be tempted.

> (I used M5 as that was same date as the other med fmt cameras in the pop
> photo annual reviews I quoted the weights from, pre M6 intro I guess?)...

The M5 is definitly pre-M6 intro. AFAIR it sold so well that Leica felt
force to reintroduce the M4 (then called M4-2). The M5 really is the odd
one out,
 
> my preferred travel kit SLRs are like Nikon FE/EM combos or Pentax 
> MEsuper/ME etc. for their low weight and small size. But comparing these
> compact SLRs against a similar Leica M series kit would not produce any
> really large savings in weight or size, yes?

Not much, no. Compared to my girlfriends SRT101 kit (body + 2 additional
lenses) the weight saving I get from my M2 + 2 lenses is nearly
cancelled by the hand-held meter. OTOH the Leica is a lot better at
taking pictures unnoticed compared to any SLR because it seems to be
overlooked by the victim^Wsubject and is so quiet

> That's why I was surprised to discover, coming back to the Leica rf
> purchasing issue, that a number of the later lenses have been reworked to
> be retrofocus designs in order to accommodate the metering cell in the M6.

I believe that there is an additional reason - some of the lens designs
are shared between M and R series Leicas, so an SLR-compatible
retrofocus design makes even more sense.

T.


From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: retrofocus Leica M lenses prejudices was Re: leica M weight
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 

[email protected] (Timo Geusch) wrote:

>Robert Monaghan [email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That's why I was surprised to discover, coming back to the Leica rf
>> purchasing issue, that a number of the later lenses have been reworked to
>> be retrofocus designs in order to accommodate the metering cell in the M6.
>
>I believe that there is an additional reason - some of the lens designs
>are shared between M and R series Leicas, so an SLR-compatible
>retrofocus design makes even more sense.

Erwin Puts claims in his review of the new 28/2.0 Summicron-M  at
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/m2-28.html that retrofocus
designs have the potential to improve on classical designs (he cites the
double-Gauss specifically) since the introduction of additional elements
gives the designer more opportunities to correct aberrations.  It's my
understanding as well that retrofocus designs aren't as prone to cos^4
vignetting as seen in the 21/3.4 Super-Angulon, the Zeiss 16mm Biogon etc.

If this is true (and I'm just 	quoting others here - I do software and
lenses are definitely hardware) then it should come as no surprise at all
that Leica has largely moved beyond pure symmetrical wide-angle designs.
It strikes me that the main advantage of the "pure" designs was that they
were easier to compute while still giving acceptable performance.  With
computerized ray-tracing this advantage is now moot.

Paul
http://www.chefurka.com


From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What's the deal with Leica, anyway?
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2001 

[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote:

>this is why I'd like to do some blind lens tests to see if these opinions 
>are supported by reliably and significant differences in the images 
>produced. 

Why?  I'd rather spend my time taking pictures that I want to print than
taping newspapers to walls.  :)

The main thing I've noticed is in contre jour pics, Leica glass has
considerably more contrast than Nikkor glass.  Slap a filter in front of
either lens and the difference disappears, though.  They both suck.  :)


From: [email protected] (Heinz Richter)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 04 Dec 2001 
Subject: Re: retrofocus Leica M lenses prejudices was Re: leica M weight

This is pertaining only to wide angle lenses of 28mm and shorter.  Sligjht
retrofocus designs became necessary for Leica cameras with the introduction of
the M5 and Leica CL.  Both cameras had the light meter cell on a swing arm,
which positioned the photo cell in front of the shutter.  These arms interfered
with the rear sections of the older, non-retrofocus designs.  Subsequently
Leitz (Leica) redesigned these lenses to a slight retrofocus lay-out.  The
retrofocus design is necessary in the M6 to allow proper illumination of the
photo cell and to avoid any inaccurate readings.  Many of the old wide angle
lenses will fit but don't necessarily give accurate light readings.

Heinz
GMP  Photography
FOTOgraphicART
GMB Custom Black & White Lab
http://www.goldmem.com


From: [email protected] (Heinz Richter)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 04 Dec 2001 
Subject: Re: retrofocus Leica M lenses prejudices was Re: leica M weight

>I think their choice of a retrofocus lens design(s) for the M6 was not 
>due to sound optical reasons, but rather due to the simple mechanical 
>mounting issues of locating a metering cell where it needed to be.

Exactly!  This, however, is not exclusive to the M6.  The necessity for mild
retrofocus designs started with the introdiction of the M5 and the Leica CL.


Heinz
GMP  Photography
FOTOgraphicART
GMB Custom Black & White Lab
http://www.goldmem.com


From: [email protected] (brian)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: retrofocus Leica M lenses prejudices was Re: leica M weight
Date: 5 Dec 2001 

Hi Bob:

Retrofocus lenses are certainly bigger and heavier than more classical
symmetrical types, but in many ways they have more optical potential. 
For example, it is fairly straightforward to design an f/2 or even
f/1.4 retrofocus, but a symmetrical Biogon is really hard to correct
faster than f/4 or so.  As others have mentioned in this thread, the
retrofocus also has much improved light falloff characteristics.  The
Biogon is better than cos^4 (the better designs are approximately
cos^3) due to the outer negative elements, but advanced retrofocus
designs can be cos^1 or even less.  In certain projection systems it
is possible to design retrofocus lenses having zero illumination
falloff.

The main optical problems in retrofocus designs are distortion and the
closely related chromatic variation of distortion (a.k.a. color
fringing, a.k.a. lateral color).  These problems can be corrected to a
remarkable degree through the use of aspheric surfaces and abnormal
partial dispersion glass.  The recent Nikon 17-35mm/2.8 zoom lens is
an excellent example of these correction techniques, as the zoom lens
(essentially a reversed telephoto with 4 moving groups to accomplish
zooming).  The zoom lens is actually better corrected than most of the
older Nikon prime lenses within its range.

Bulk and weight do remain issues, however, and symmetrical designs
become far more appealing as the format size increases.

Brian


[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote 
> yes, the old bronicas will definitely help build strong bodies and arms ;-)
> 
> that's why my Olympus XA series rangefinders have spoiled me and my view 
> of what a "compact" rangefinder really means - it used to mean an Auto S2
> or canonet, but now it means the size of a few rolls of 35mm film ;-) ;-)
> 
> I agree with you that the M series rangefinder lenses are generally
> smaller, but partly that's offset since so many SLR lenses are 
> compact zooms replacing a number of lenses. But the collapsible lenses 
> were neat and compact; closest in SLR lenses is nesting 400mm tamron ;-)
> 
> While there are some monster wide angle lenses out there, my 20mm f/3.5
> nikkor, 24mm f/2.8, and 28mm are the same size roughly as the 50mm lens.  
> You are right that there is a difference in favor of the Leica rf optics,
> but it isn't a night and day difference in size or weight as numbers show
> (I used M5 as that was same date as the other med fmt cameras in the pop
> photo annual reviews I quoted the weights from, pre M6 intro I guess?)...
> 
> my preferred travel kit SLRs are like Nikon FE/EM combos or Pentax 
> MEsuper/ME etc. for their low weight and small size. But comparing these 
> compact SLRs against a similar Leica M series kit would not produce any 
> really large savings in weight or size, yes? Against my Nikon F or F2 and 
> motordrive with battery packs and spare batteries, heck yes ;-) But the FE 
> or MEsuper are pretty compact and lightweight. 
> 
> re: retrofocus Leica rangefinder lenses
> 
> one of the distinct advantages, IMHO, of the rangefinder lenses in general 
> and Leica's in particular is the use of non-retrofocus designs versus SLR 
> lenses. This reduces the number of lens elements and so flare is also 
> reduced and contrast is improved too, both in theory and practice. 
> 
> That's why I was surprised to discover, coming back to the Leica rf
> purchasing issue, that a number of the later lenses have been reworked to
> be retrofocus designs in order to accommodate the metering cell in the M6.
> Granted, the degree of offset is small, but you still have the added
> number of elements and potential for flare and lower contrast. This is one
> reason I prefer prime (fixed) lenses in 35mm SLR and med fmt SLR use, as
> they have improved flare and contrast factors. 
> 
> If some of the newer M lenses are also now retrofocus designs (to clear
> the M6 metering cell..)  then that reduces the non-retrofocus lens design
> benefits that used to be the almost exclusive benefit of rangefinders over
> SLRs (ignoring the 21mm biogon nikkor mirror up lens and the other
> non-retrofocus lenses for SLRs).
> 
> Again, this is yet another of my prejudices (here in favor of Leica
> rangefinders) which is not quite as clearcut as most of the people who
> cite this non-retrofocus design benefit of rangefinders and Leica M in
> particular suggest. Granted, the Leica lenses have achieved superb results
> despite their (modest) retrofocus design requirements. But if we are 
> comparing retrofocus SLR against retrofocus M6 body designs, the 
> differences are less than when comparing retrofocus versus non-retrofocus 
> designs. My tendency would be to go with the non-retrofocus designs (as I 
> have with a hassy SWC/M 38mm biogon rather than the bigger and heavier 
> 40mm distagon retrofocus design for my hasselblads).
> 
> bobm


To: [email protected]
From: kelvin [email protected]>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 
Subject: Re: [camera-fix] summar lens


Actually, the soviet Industar 61 50/3.5 is rated in soviet collector circles
to be slower, but cheaper and even better than the Jupiter 8. Typically
retails for about US$10-15.


you wrote:
>[email protected] writes:
>> 
>> I was able to unscrew the lens elements, with help of
>> some rubber widgets and an adjustable split
>> screwdriver, of my Leitz Summar, and clean up some
>> cloudiness in between elements. However, I don't know
>> if anything can be done for the massive cleaning marks
>> on the front of the front element!
>> 
>
>I've heard that this lens was mediocre at best even when fresh from the 
>factory, so it may not merit a lot of restoration effort.  Get a Russian 
>Zeiss-clone Jupiter 8 for less than $50 and your pictures will be better
than 
>they ever were with the Summar.
>JMcFadden
>


From: "A Shooter" [email protected]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Buying a Medium Format camera

Gary Gallaher wrote:
> Hello everyone!
> 
> I currently enjoy taking pictures of nature, landscape and some portraits
> of people with a Cannon 35mm SLR and for the most part slide film. I am
> strictly an amateur who enjoys shooting up film and once in awhile
> producing a really nice picture. I try very hard to make good composures
> and am learning more and more how to do this.
> 
> I have been looking into medium format cameras and of course the
> Hasselblad seems to be the old workhorse and the camera against which all
> others are measured.
> 
> My questions are many: 
> 
> 1) Does it make sense for me to even consider buying a medium format
> camera?

This is a loaded question.  I dropped about four big ones in the spring for
a new Leica M6, 35 f/2, and a used 90/2.  Can I tell the difference between
it and my Nikon? Not really.  Would I give up my Leica, NEVER.  I have 
whated the Leica for over 14 years!  My point is that I bought the camera
because it made sense emotionally.  I love the camera, shoot with it a lot,
but do not expect to make much money with the camera...

I also bought a Blad system, but that was for portrait work.  My object is
the large print, upwards of four by five feet in size.  35mm simply cannot
hold up to that type of enlargement.  

I have started making money with the Blad, it has not paid itself off, but 
it will, thus, economically it did make sense for me to buy the Blad.

Does it make sense for you?  You have to answer that based on your own
priorities.

> 2) Should I buy a better (Hasselblad 501 or 503) camera or get a cheaper
> one to start out?

Again, a lot depends.  I considered buying something less expensive, but I
knew that if I did, once I made the money for a Blad, I would buy one.  I
like owning the best.

I don't know, but I do believe there is a difference between the Blad and
cheaper cameras.  I have a feeling that you have to be really anal, like
myself, to see the difference most of the time.

> 3) New or used? 

Do your homework.  There are some Blads that are very had to find used.
I bought my body, two lens, and three backs used and have had very good
luck with it over the last few months.

> 4) When blowing up pictures to the 8x10 size, will I notice a huge
> difference in quality vs. a 35mm? 

I have more experence of compairing 4x5 to 35mm.  In a 8x10 print, 
there is a noticable difference.  I would be willing to bet that the
average person would not notice much of a difference.  Enlarge the 
image a bit more to say, 16x20.  It is night and day!  With both films
being Tri-X, the 4x5 has zero grain, the 35mm looks like a beach!

> 5) Between a cheap and top of the line medium format camera, will I notice
> a difference in blowing up to the 8x10 size? (I assume that it is still 
> the lens that makes the most difference between pictures).

One advantage I heard about the Blad was that it's lens have better
contrast then the other brands.  This will payoff the most with 
B&W (my preference) and backlite situations, something else I enjoy
shooting in.  This was another major reason I opted for Blad over
others.

-- 
A Shooter


From: [email protected] (Heinz Richter)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 08 Dec 2001 
Subject: Re: retrofocus Leica M lenses prejudices was Re: leica M weight

>Photographic optics do not require an overall surface accuracy of 1/4
>wavelength.  The tightest tolerance generally used by the best makers
>is around 1-2 waves of power and 1/2 wave of irregularity.
> Tilt and decentration
>are always far more important to control than surface figure in
>photographic lenses.

I can only speak for Leica here.  Their tolerances are as follows:
Lens thickness - 10 microns
Sphericity - 3/100 micron
Centering - 4 microns


Heinz
GMP  Photography
FOTOgraphicART
GMB Custom Black & White Lab
http://www.goldmem.com


From: "Matthew Powell" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Voigtlander Bessa R user feedback sought
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 

"Jeffrey Williams" [email protected]> wrote 
> Hi.
>
> I'm considering a Bessa R (if I can find a dealership within driving
> distance of Dallas).

http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtlen.htm
(not really what you're looking for, but a nice overview of the Voigtsina
line)

http://www.cameraquest.com/CosVoigtUser.htm
(Voigtsina user mailing list. Topica has the archives - ~7000 messages)

> If it's too much of a gamble, I'll save my money for a longer period and
> get an M6, but if a Bessa R is decent equipment...

FWIW, I've heard mostly positive comments on the Voigtlander screwmount
lenses. No actual testing, unfortunately.

The Bessa R body gets relatively good marks - bright viewfinder, good feel.
The rangefinder adjustment issues don't sound as bad as they did when it was
first introduced. But there's said to be a general "cheapness" of quality.

> TIA
>
> Jeff




From: "Wayne Harrison" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Advice needed prime v zoom lenses
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 

Ahriman wrote ...

. You can *believe* what you want,
>the rest of the ng will go on *knowing* what we know.

    well, i *know* this:  i have a leica 35/2 aspherical and a nikkor
2-35/2.8, and there is simply no distinction regarding the perceived
sharpness of each lens.  i must admit that i don't do enlargements larger
than 11x13, but that gets close to the limits of any 35mm camera with any
lens.

a. wayne harrison




From: "Webmarketing" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 2 questions - Nikon vs. Leica
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 

>
> Two questions:
>
> (1) At f-stops of 4.5 or higher, will the Nikon 80-200mm f4.5 Zoom deliver
> comparable quality images as the Nikon 105mm f2.5?

No, of course not.  You shouldn't compare a prime lens and a zoom.
>
> (2) Assuming money doesn't figure into the equation, how does the Nikon
105mm
> f2.5 compare with the Leica 90mm APO Asph Summicron f2.0 in terms of image
> quality?

I don't know but I can tell you the Leica 90mm f2.8 is one of the two best
telephoto lenses for 35mm cameras I've ever used and I've used literally
hundreds of them.   It is better than the Nikkor f2.5 in every respect
except for contrast where the Nikkor gets the nod.   I would suspect the
compromises involved in making an f2 90mm lens are meaningful.   I haven't
used it but I'd bet a reasonable amount of money that those compromises
would make it slightly inferior to the Nikkor.    Just a reasoned guess
since I have no experience with it.

As a rule of thumb, the tradeoffs for a faster maximum aperture include loss
of resolution in the corners at wide apertures, more distortion, more flare
and less contrast (yes and more weight and bulk.)  This is due to a greater
number of elements needed to correct aberrations and the size of the front
element.  These are physical things that lens designers simply can't avoid.
They can only adjust the amount of each compromise within the total.
Every time you opt for a faster lens you get some unwanted things as well.
You need to balance them against your needs.  Personally, I use the fastest
lenses I can get as a rule for 35mm cameras and find the compromises
acceptable so don't spend a lot of time worrying about it.  Hope this helps.

Fred
Maplewood Photography




From: "don ferrario" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 2 questions - Nikon vs. Leica
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 

I went through a similar situation, having been a long time
Nikon user.  I actually sold most of my Nikon stuff, and bought
a an  M6 and several lenses.

I wasn't expecting to see any significant difference in optics
(I had most of Nikon's best offerings) and in fact saw absolutely
no difference.

What surprised me was the difficulty in using the Leica.
There is great variability in focus feel and f-stop rings from
lens to lens.  Some turn easily, some quite hard.  These were
all brand new lenses.  In the Leica user groups, they talk
a lot about getting "a good one" with lenses, as there seems
to be some variability.  All the ones I had were good, but at
$1500-$2000/each (I bought the latest ASPH models) they
ought to be.

Loading the M6 is an acquired skill I did not master.  I got it
done, but it was a pain.  The controls on the M6 are quite small,
and my hands are large.  The shutter dial in particular, is quite
stiff.

Using a separate viewfinder for very wide angles (I had the
21mm), is a real drag I didn't care for.

It wasn't for me.  Doesn't mean it's not for you.  I switched back
to the Nikon for 35mm.   Others like the Leica rangefinders,
and they're not wrong.  I'm just saying you should know it's
what you want before buying/selling, as disappointments can
cost a lot of money.

Note I'm not anti-rangefinder.  I use a Mamiya-6 regularly, did so
before and after using the Leica, and still do.  The Mamiya has none
of the problems noted above, and of course the larger negative
blows away any 35mm.  The Mamiya also isn't any heavier than
comparable Leica lenses/bodies, although they are slightly
larger.  You may want to look at the Mamiya-6 before making
the plunge, because you can get a mint used Mamiya-6 system
with all three available lenses, typically around $2500 or less.

don ferrario
www.donferrario.com
www.nikonlinks.com



"Sikaan" [email protected] wrote 
> Hi,
>
> I've been a Nikon user for over 20 years, with F2AS and FE bodies.  Among the
> lenses I have is a mint 21-year old Nikkor 80-200mm f4.5.  I currently bought a
> Leica M6 with a wide angle lens.  Then I thought about getting the Leica 90mm
> APO Asph Summicron f2.  I have heard a lot about the perfection of the Nikon
> 105mm f2.5 Manual lens.
>
> Two questions:
>
> (1) At f-stops of 4.5 or higher, will the Nikon 80-200mm f4.5 Zoom deliver
> comparable quality images as the Nikon 105mm f2.5?
>
> (2) Assuming money doesn't figure into the equation, how does the Nikon 105mm
> f2.5 compare with the Leica 90mm APO Asph Summicron f2.0 in terms of image
> quality?
>
> Thanks for your advice.



From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: 2 questions - Nikon vs. Leica
Date: Sun, 16 Dec 2001 

[email protected] (Sikaan) wrote:

>(2) Assuming money doesn't figure into the equation, how does the Nikon 105mm
>f2.5 compare with the Leica 90mm APO Asph Summicron f2.0 in terms of image
>quality?

I've used the 105 and both the current Leica 90's - the 90/2.8 Elmarit-M
and 90/2.0 AA Summicron.  What Fred says about the 90/2.8 being better in
every way than the 105 is true IME.  I no longer have the Elmarit, though -
I sold it in favour of the 90/2.0 which is a significantly better lens at
2.8 as well as being a stop faster.

While Fred's comment that faster lenses tend to be weaker than slower ones,
ceteris paribus, that doesn't take into account the fact that in some cases
ceteris is not paribus :-)  This is one of those cases.  Given that the
90/2.0 is a more recent computation with a different optical formula, and
is optimized through the use of a very large glass aspheric element, it is
in fact the better lens (the same holds true for the new 28 Summicron
compared to the older 28 Elmarit).

The price you pay for this is, of course, price.  I'm reminded of the sign
on a print-shop wall: "Fast, cheap, good.  Pick two."  In the case of the
28 and 90 Summicrons, Leica has opted for fast and good...

Someone else asked about the 35's - IME the Summicron-ASPH and the
Summilux-ASPH are pretty much indistinguishable at 2.0 and smaller.  So
again, you spend significantly more money to get an extra stop with no
reduction in performance.

Paul
http://www.chefurka.com


Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 
From: Ian Stolerman [email protected]>
Subject: Corfield
To: [email protected]

Dear Robert

I have been looking at your nice web site about the Corfield 66 camera and other Corfield matters. May I with respect suggest an amendment to the site since the reference to Corfield 35 mm cameras as 'Leica clones' is inaccurate and demeaning. The 35 mm Periflex cameras were highly original designs using a unique focusing mechanism not found in any other camera. It is true they used a Leica screw mount and the shape of the camera resembled the classic Leica, but there were several major differences. The full story is on another web site that may be of interest to you. I hope you find this message useful. I have no connection with Sir Kenneth Corfield other than an interest in similar photographic products.

http://www.corfield.org/camera/corfield.htm>



With best wishes



Ian Stolerman

[Ed. note: the Corfield site is definitely worth visiting!...]



From: [email protected] (Dilbertdroid2)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 25 Dec 2001 
Subject: Re: Alternative to leica m6?

>Any one can recommend any similar featured (and less pricey) rangefinders ?
>Require smooth operation and quality optics.

The Konica Hexar RF shares the Leica M-bayonet mount but a whole outfit with
flash and 50mm lens can be had for around $1200 new.    Also has autoexposure
and motor drive.  Quality and build is similar to Contax G-series cameras.

The Voigtlander Bessa-R is a little more similar to the Leica CL, but also uses
LTM lenses, so Leica-M lenses aren't an option.  Voigtlander LTM lenses cover a
wide range, including some very unique products like the 12mm and 15mm heliars,
and are mid-priced, about $400-$800.   Of course, the quality of these lenses
falls way below that of Leica but they perform well for the price.

Voigtlander Bessa-T takes Leica-M lenses but has no viewfinder, only a
rangefinder, so you have to use an aux viewfinder for all you lenses.   Nice
wide rangefinder base for good focus accuracy and both Voigtlander bodies are
based on the same chassis, with conventional film loading but lots of plastic
and definitely not up to the rugged standards of even a used Leica.



From: "Leicaddict" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Alternative to leica m6?
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 

First, let me state, that there is no substitute. The Leica RF has basically
been in production for 75 years. But having said that, the Voigtlander
series remains the dominant down & dirty player. In fact on many levels, the
Voigtlander optics can stand comparison with any other series, including
Leica and Zeiss. Voigtlander also has several interesting bodies that seem
to appeal to the RF hobbyist. I think another interesting alternative to a
small, lightweight system could center around several AF-slr's. For
instance, I also use a Nikon N80 with Nikkor AFD 20mm, 35mm, and 85mm
lenses. It really doesn't get any small, lighter weight, or more compact
than this. And no one in their right mind will debate the quality of Nikon
optics. To help with your decision, I've included two links. Both of these
gentlemen are among the most knowledgeable RF avocets around.
 Edwin Puts http://www.imx.nl/index.html  Sandy Grady
http://cameraquest.com/

Glenn Travis


"neobluskie" [email protected]> wrote 
> Any one can recommend any similar featured (and less pricey) rangefinders
?
> Require smooth operation and quality optics.



From: [email protected] (McEowen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 27 Dec 2001 
Subject: Re: The cheap philosophy

 Careful, there! You might get disowned by other leica-philes for 
suggesting that the optics by Nikon, Canon and others are known to produce 
similar or equiv. results to the Leica's superlative optics, and you have 
to get down to promaster standards to see a real difference. ;-) ;-)>>

I own Leica equipment. I routinely shoot Leica and Nikon optics on the same
shoot. While there are times I CAN pick the Leica shots off the light table
without too much trouble, as a general rule my Leica lenses don't put my Nikon
stuff to shame. Sure there are subtle differences but it's not night and day.
That being said, the difference seems to increase as the light gets worse. The
Leica lenses just seem to handle low light situations better.




From: "Mxsmanic" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The cheap philosophy
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 

"Robert Monaghan" [email protected]> wrote 

> You might get disowned by other leica-philes
> for suggesting that the optics by Nikon, Canon
> and others are known to produce similar or
> equiv. results to the Leica's superlative
> optics ...

Lens quality is far more closely correlated with lens cost than with
brand name.  Expensive lenses tend to produce better images.  Leica does
not produce any cheap lenses, and so all of its lenses are
expensive--and thus very good--which in turn creates the impression that
Leica lenses are somehow better overall than any other.  But Canon and
Nikon lenses of comparable price provide comparable image quality as
well.  And nobody can recognize the brand by the results alone.

From: [email protected] (Tim)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The cheap philosophy
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 

> And nobody can recognize the brand by the results alone.

Hmmmmmm, aren't the "results" the only thing that matters?  There are
very few of my clients who even ask about what sort of equipment I am
using to take their portrait...but every one of them expects good
results.

Maybe they should have a Leica Challenge...sort of like the old Pepsi
Challenge ads from years ago.  

>It's certainly true that, in your grossly incompetent hands, no one
>could possibly tell the difference between the results from a cheap
>disposable and those from a Leica or Nikon 'pro-grade' lens.

Like my old Daddy used to say about playing poker:
"Any fool can play a good hand, it takes a skilled player to win with
a bad hand."

OK, so you can take your Leica and go make some great shots, I'm not
impressed.  Now try one of those Wal-Mart disposables, prove your
superior skill, go out and make some great shots with it, then come
back and show us.

Tim


From: william martin [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The cheap philosophy
Date: Thu, 27 Dec 2001 

Sorry to rain on your parade. I also like Leicas, they show very fine engineering and are a great pleasure
to use. I've only owned one, but gave it up for a Zorki, when I saw it could get results as good as
my Leica produced, for much less than 5% of the cost. And if I just had to, I could use Leica lenses on the Zorki,  
but so far I've seen no need to do that, my Russian lenses work just fine, thanks. I have to admit that
the fit and finish of the Zorki leaves a lot to be desired, and it certainly doesn't make any kind of fashion statement.
Now, though,  I have more extra money to spend on all the other do-dads I've always lusted after, so in the long run, I
reckon I'm better off for having rid myself of the Leica, and I found that, surprisingly, my penis is no smaller than it was
when I owned the Leica.

I did optical engineering and design in the space business for somewhat more than 14
years. I and my colleagues developed computer designed optical systems when the manufacturing
methods couldn't produce them at feasible cost. All that's changed now,  and my experience tells me 
that there's no particular cost reason for making substandard optics, for most focal lengths. At a reasonable 
cost , MUCH more reasonable than what Leitz sells their lenses for, most lenses nowadays will produce 
beautiful results ( in the hands of a competent photographer ), and there's no optical reason for paying the big
bucks that Leitz asks for their products. The cheaper lenses suffer in the "mechanics" department, which is 
where all the cost-savings can be had . Mechanical stuff is super expensive, but good glass can be cranked 
out ( once the manufacturing process is set up ) automatically, at very low cost. It's true that some focal lengths,
especially the short ones, aren't as cheap and automatic to construct.

Leicas are for people who appreciate the ultimate in engineering, cost bedamned, much
like Mercedes Benz vs Honda. My Mercedes gives me supreme pleasure everytime I drive it, but my
Honda just keeps on going & going & going, much like the little rabbit on TV. The Honda gets me there and back
every bit as reliably as the Mercedes does, and for a lot less money, but it ain't as much fun; And sometimes I do
believe my penis grows everytime I get behind the wheel of the Mercedes, but deep down, I know it's only a fantasy.

Peace, Bill Martin

Anthony Polson [email protected]> wrote:
> william martin [email protected]> wrote:
> 
> > With modern manufacturing methods and computer-aided design, a lens maker 
> > would almost have to make a deliberate effort to make a bad lens, at least in some focal lengths.
> > I think the main difference nowadays in cost and quality is in the body, mount, and 
> > diaphagm assembly, not the optics. 
> 
> 
> That statement is absolutely and completely wrong.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Best regards,
> Anthony Polson


From: [email protected] (Iskandar Taib)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Sacrillege question
Date: 27 Dec 2001 

Roger  [email protected]> wrote:
>I've been reading up on various aspects of photography - and have one 
>question which will no doubt make some people laugh and others cringe, 
>yet more read it in disbelief:
>
>What is so good about Leica cameras compared to Nikon, Canon, Contax, 
>Minolta (and some others)?

Oh dear.. My reaction was to start laughing out loud. In the last year
or so (and possibly much longer) no period of time has passed when
there wasn't a long discussion thread going on about this very same
subject in this newsgroup. Unfortunately, the people who take part are
not only very opinionated, they're also frequently quite nasty to each
other. Consequently, I (and I suspect many others) have learned to
avoid such threads, because not only are they boring and unpleasant,
what information you find on them tends to be repeated again and
again, ad nauseum.

>Are they simply built of better quality materials and better glass for 
>the lenses? Is it because they seem to be so small and compact? Or are 
>Leicas designers and engineers superior to popular Japanese manufacturers'?

Let's see if I can summarize what I've read in the past.

1) Leica glass is very, very good, and (at least according to the
   Leica advocates) nothing begins to approach it.

2) The cameras have bright viewfinders, which makes focusing easy when
   it gets dark.

3) The cameras are very rugged, and will last several generations. You
   can supposedly buy one, and sell it 20 years later for more than
   what you paid for it.

4) They're very well built, and feel like they are. 

5) Compared to an SLR, they're very quiet. 

6) They're small (but not particularly light in weight). 

Last, but not least:

7) There is some sort of "Leica experience" you undergo when you use
   one. You can't experience it until you use one, so those who
   haven't used one you're not qualified to talk about it. If you've
   ever tangled with Macintosh zealots, you'll know what I mean.. ^_-

They do have their drawbacks. They're much better with short lenses
than with long ones. With some lenses, you need to use a viewfinder in
the accessory shoe. Very long lenses are impractical, since the
rangefinder isn't accurate enough, and you'd have to "sight in" a
viewfinder. They lack a lot of the things SLR users take for granted
(motor drives, program exposure, etc.). 

-- 
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: [email protected]  |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Home page: http://bigwig.geology.indiana.edu/iskandar/isk2.html


From: [email protected] (McEowen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 27 Dec 2001 
Subject: Re: Alternative to leica m6?

>Yes.. try the Leica CL or Minolta CL or CLE.. has built in light meter,
>Take
>the M series lenses .. has the frames for 40, 50 and 90mm.. About $600 used
>and half the size. Image quality is from  the optics not the body ( one
>hopes the shutter works fine).

If you go with the CLE (the best of the three IMO) I've heard that the shutter
from a cheap Minolta XG series SLR camera (i.e. XG-1) will drop right in should
you ever need parts. I've even seen used CLE cameras being sold with a spare
parts minolta slr body. 

Of course, you almost have to question the wisdom of paying $600-$700 for a CL
or CLE when a user M4-2 or M4-P often sells in the same range on ebay. Getting
repairs done on old Leicas is not a problem (unless you consider the cost to be
a problem). 


From: [email protected] (Ppestis)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 27 Dec 2001 
Subject: Re: pop photo's Keppler & quality

>Ahh, yes.  The great Keppler.  Have you seen one of the latest (if not the
>latest) issues of Pop Photo where Keppler shows off his "fantastic" wedding
>photos?  I'd be ashamed to show many of those images to friends and family,
>let alone publish them!
>
>
At least he admittted that some of those photos he took were a disaster and yes
he published some bad stuff , but acknowledged as much.  I viewed the article
as more of a "how not to do it".

As far as Leica, no I don't own one anymore - I sold mine years ago. But I will
admit that I could almost always pick out the color photo taken with a  Leica. 
It was never sharpness, it was color contrast when comparing the same shots
taken by a  Nikon or Canon.  



From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Alternative to leica m6?
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2001 

At the risk of being called "a heretic", here's my humble observation
- Leica purists please stop reading.  :)

I just compared the finder of my M6 TTL 0.85 with my (ahem) Contax
Aria + "cheapo" 1.7/50 Planar and to my surprise, the SLR combination
is actually brighter and easier to focus than the M6 TTL with the 50mm
'Cron, not to say without any rangefinder flare.  The Leica M is
traditionally prized for its compactness but in fact the Aria is even
smaller and lighter, with a built-in motor-drive to boot.  Of course,
the Contax is not an all-metal camera but unlike so many current AF
SLRs, it does not feel cheap or flimsy at all, thanks to a judicious
use of polycarbonate.  (Being a metal-holic, the Aria is the only
non-full-metal, serious camera I like and care to buy.)

Many of us will agree that Zeiss glass is as good as Leica and I'm
also of this opinion.  Granted, the colours (Zeiss a bit more vibrant
and Leica more neutral) and bokeh (Zeiss already very good and Leica
perhaps somewhat smoother + more aperture blades) may be slightly
different but with equivalent lenses, you just can't beat either make.
Leica holds the edge in the compactness of the M lenses but not in
price, even with the good deals I got with the penultimate 'Cron and
thin Tele-Elmarit.  On the other hand, Zeiss lenses are very well
constucted too, noticeably better than the equivalent Ai-S Nikkors and
with much more useable depth-of-field scales.

The material, fit and construction of the M6 is also reflected in its
price.  The lack of noise and vibration are unmatched too.  But the
Aria is surprisingly quiet even with the built-in motor - I'd say its
noise is lower than the average AF SLR.  The shutter-mirror are also
very well damped - I can hand-hold a 85mm Sonnar at 1/30 easily, which
was a lot more difficult with the (ahem) N*k*n FM I bought more than
20 years ago.  The maximum flash sync speed is 1/125 and to me,  a lot
more useable in daylight fill-flash than the Leica's 1/50 because I
use ISO 400 film almost exclusively.  Unlike earlier M's, my TTL won't
even do 1/60 with flash.  Needless to say, the Aria has the usual
exposure info (also a frame-counter) in the viewfinder, auto-exposure
modes plus spot/centre-weighted/evaluative metering, though I usually
go with aperture-priority and manual only.  With the M6, all we have
is the non-weighted meter and LEDs in the finder.  As for ergonmics,
while holding the Leica's rounded metal contours is a great visceral
feeling (save for the clumsy lugs of the original strap), the Aria is
actually easier to hold, especially with only the right hand.  Both
handle nicely.

My eyesight won't allow me to use the M6 in 20 years (or maybe even
less) so I have to enjoy its exquisite craftsmanship and top-notch
compact lenses while I can. I'd like to own the Noctilux but can't
afford it and don't actually have the need.  Of course, unlike the
Leica M, the Aria is not a classic legend and won't hold its value
like the former.  But for my purposes at least, the Aria is a better
user (and much better bang-for-the-buck) than the M6 TTL.  

Andrew


From: "Mxsmanic" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: The cheap philosophy
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 

"Robert Monaghan" [email protected]> wrote 

> you can't compare an f/4 against a pro f/2.8
> lens for many obvious reasons ...

All Leica lenses are pro lenses, even at f/4.  That was the closest
match I saw.

In fact, all my Leica lenses are primes (necessarily), and all my Nikon
lenses are zooms.  If I compare the two, I'm spending almost exactly the
same amount of money on lenses for both camera systems.  I don't like to
use primes on a SLR, and zooms are not available for rangefinders.
Anyway, the only Leica lens that was really expensive was the Noctilux,
and it has no real competition (nothing else opens up to f/1, except
that apocryphal Canon lens, and results from that don't look any better
than those from the Noctilux).

> Not all the Leica lenses are priced at 8 times
> the cost of similar range or focal length and
> speed lenses, but too many of them are ;-)

Production numbers are small.  It's probably not worth it for SLR
lenses, since Canon and Nikon make lenses that are pretty much
equivalent at lower prices, and the R body offers few real advantages
over the Big Two.  For rangefinder lenses, Leica has little competition,
though, so it's easier to justify paying for it.

> Many leica used lenses are 70-80% of new
> prices for same lens.

That's probably because a used Leica lens is often identical to a new
Leica lens in every way except in the mind of the buyer.

> surely, this 8 fold higher cost is worth it
> to some Leica users ...

My investment in Leica M equipment is essentially the same as my
investment in Nikon F equipment, with roughly the same number of lenses.
The major difference is that the M lenses are all primes, whereas the F
lenses are AF zooms; and the M lenses are all faster than the F lenses.
The M lenses also show slightly better optical quality in a few limiting
situations, compared to the F lenses (although my 28-70 is a low serial
number, and I've always wondered if it might not be below the curve for
that lens, especially when comparing it to the other AF-S zooms in that
trio).

> But other users who haven't been able to do
> their own comparisons might be surprised at
> how small these differences are in real
> world photos taken at typical f/stops ...

I never notice any differences at all, as a general rule.  They are all
fine lenses.  I did notice, however, that a picture taken of a distant
building with my Summicron-M 1:2/50 was slightly sharper than the same
photo taken with my AF-S Nikkor 28-70/2.8D ED-IF, although you had to
look really, really close at the scan to see the difference.

The sharpest lens I have is the Apo-Summicron-M 1:2/90, which easily
blows all the other lenses away.  The AF-S Nikkor 80-200/2.8 and
17-35/2.8 are not far behind, however.  In most photos, it's impossible
to distinguish between them.



From: [email protected] (Godfrey DiGiorgi)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica (Pepsi-style) challenge? ;-) Re: The cheap philosophy
Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2001 

Waste time testing lenses for a "blind test"? Silly idea. It's already
obvious what lenses do what, and who cares anyway? As long as the pictures
satisfy you and/or your customers, keep shooting.

I have spent much of the past two weeks or so scanning some negatives from
the early 1980s, taken with a variety of cameras but mostly a Yashicamat
124G, Rolleiflex 3.5MX-EVS, Nikon FM and a bunch of lenses, Mamiya 1000S.
Today I scanned a negative made with a Leica Summicron-M 50/2. 

Many of those old negs are wonderful, particularly those taken with the
old Rollei (cost me $60 then!) and the Mamiya. But I can see the
difference to the Summicron-M 50/2 *immediately* ... it's just very
obvious how good that Summicron is. The fine tonal gradation of the larger
format negs is very apparent as well: the Leica neg was on Ilford Pan F
Super -- achieves similar grain and resolution to the Kodak TXP 120 medium
format negs at the expense of 3 stops of film speed and 20 years of film
quality improvement. 

Scanning a 645 neg made on Ilford Delta 100 with a 1995 Fuji GA645 ...
Wow! Just amazing resolution and tonalities, makes the Leica neg look
almost cheesy.

Godfrey


To: [email protected]
From: "yupiter3" [email protected]>
Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2002 
Subject: [camera-fix] Re: Bessa R rangefinder adjustment method ??

***Here is a link I found on the adjustment method:
http://www.pk67.com/xb/62.html
It is from: Anon E. Moose [email protected]
Philip


--- In camera-fix@y..., "Frank Earl" fbearl@h...> wrote:
> Yes, it was under warranty.  But a nice little repair shop had just opened
> up and the repair man had a very good local reputation and I wanted  to give
> him some business and develop a relationship.
> 
> Thanks for the info on the lenses.  I had been shooting the Jupiter  50/2 but
> wanted something wider.  And I fell in love with the look and feel  of the
> Nikkor lens, even though I paid almost as much as a new  Skopar "pancake"
> 35/2.5 would have cost.  I am still looking for a good 80-85mm lens and will
> keep an eye out for the Jupiter and Steinhill.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "kelvin" kelvinlee@p...>
> To: camera-fix@y...>
> Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 8:05 PM
> Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Bessa R rangefinder adjustment method ??
> 
> 
> >
> > Hi there
> >
> > I'm sorry you didn't get an answer to your query. Frankly, given that
> > it's a new-ish Bessar R ... I think $50 is worth it, in lieu of any
> > danger of breaking your new machine.
> >
> > I'm however, surprised it needed a fix at all. Wasn't it under  warranty?
> >
> > Just off-topic, but you can also look at soviet lenses e.g.  Jupiter 50/2,
> > 50/1.5,135/4 etc. ... german lenses, steinheil 85/2.8, 135/4  etc....
> > all of which are very affordable (often under US$70 on ebay) and good.
> > However, your bessa will not take lenses with protruding elements e.g.
> > Jupiter 35/2.8 .
> >
> >
> >  you wrote:
> > >I was the one who started that thread but I did not get any  guidance and
> > >finally took it to a repairmen for a $50 fix.  I had heard that the
> > >adjustment is accessible under the flash mount but the repairman  said he
> had
> > >to disassemble the top cover to get at everything.  He did a nice job.
> > >
> > >On a recent trip I found a 35mm  f/2.5 W-Nikkor C in Leica TM (I  blush at
> > >the price I paid, because I am usually a cheap person, but my lovely wife
> > >went halvers), a very small and thin lens that works very nicely on the
> > >Bessa-R.  If you have a chance to find one at a price you like, you may
> wish
> > >to try it.
> > >



To: [email protected]
From: "yupiter3" [email protected]>
Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2002 
Subject: [camera-fix] Re: Bessa R rangefinder adjustment method ??

Here is another link on the adjustment; and yes it has warnings too!

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001NhD

Regards Philip 1/5/2002


 In camera-fix@y..., "yupiter3" ccm952@b...> wrote:
> ***Here is a link I found on the adjustment method:
> http://www.pk67.com/xb/62.html
> It is from: Anon E. Moose anon@d...
> Philip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- In camera-fix@y..., "Frank Earl" fbearl@h...> wrote:
> > Yes, it was under warranty.  But a nice little repair shop had just 
> opened
> > up and the repair man had a very good local reputation and I wanted 
> to give
> > him some business and develop a relationship.
> > 
> > Thanks for the info on the lenses.  I had been shooting the Jupiter 
> 50/2 but
> > wanted something wider.  And I fell in love with the look and feel 
> of the
> > Nikkor lens, even though I paid almost as much as a new 
> Skopar "pancake"
> > 35/2.5 would have cost.  I am still looking for a good 80-85mm lens 
> and will
> > keep an eye out for the Jupiter and Steinhill.
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "kelvin" kelvinlee@p...>
> > To: camera-fix@y...>
> > Sent: Friday, December 28, 2001 8:05 PM
> > Subject: Re: [camera-fix] Bessa R rangefinder adjustment method ??
> > 
> > 
> > >
> > > Hi there
> > >
> > > I'm sorry you didn't get an answer to your query. Frankly, given 
> that
> > > it's a new-ish Bessar R ... I think $50 is worth it, in lieu of 
> any
> > > danger of breaking your new machine.
> > >
> > > I'm however, surprised it needed a fix at all. Wasn't it under 
> warranty?
> > >
> > > Just off-topic, but you can also look at soviet lenses e.g. 
> Jupiter 50/2,
> > > 50/1.5,135/4 etc. ... german lenses, steinheil 85/2.8, 135/4 
> etc....
> > > all of which are very affordable (often under US$70 on ebay) and 
> good.
> > > However, your bessa will not take lenses with protruding elements 
> e.g.
> > > Jupiter 35/2.8 .
> > >
> > >
> > > At 16:12 28-12-01 -0800, you wrote:
> > > >I was the one who started that thread but I did not get any 
> guidance and
> > > >finally took it to a repairmen for a $50 fix.  I had heard that 
> the
> > > >adjustment is accessible under the flash mount but the repairman 
> said he
> > had
> > > >to disassemble the top cover to get at everything.  He did a 
> nice job.
> > > >
> > > >On a recent trip I found a 35mm  f/2.5 W-Nikkor C in Leica TM (I 
> blush at
> > > >the price I paid, because I am usually a cheap person, but my 
> lovely wife
> > > >went halvers), a very small and thin lens that works very nicely 
> on the
> > > >Bessa-R.  If you have a chance to find one at a price you like, 
> you may
> > wish
> > > >to try it.


From: "John Sparks" [email protected]>
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: SLR and wideangle lenses?
Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2002 

Retrofocus wide angles have a couple of advantages over non-retrofocus
designs.  There is less wide angle distortion (put a round object in the
corner of the image and it will be closer to round with the retrofocus
lens).  The other advantage is that there is less light fall off toward the
edges.  Yes, a retrofocus lens design is more complex, uses more lens
elements, is bigger and heavier.  Before multicoating, there was a huge
difference in contrast and there is still probably a small difference in
contrast, but you don't necessarily get a better lens just because it's not
retrofocus.  In fact, current wide angles from Leica are somewhat retrofocus
and most consider them the sharpest lenses in their focal lengths that Leica
has produced (though they are larger, heavier and more expensive than the
older non-retrofocus lenses they replaced).

John Sparks

"Lassi Hippel�inen" [email protected]> wrote 
> A straight focus lens is always better than a retrofocus lens. Less
> glassware, less weight, less price. Less internal reflections. The
> reason is that you can use an almost symmetric lens design (see Biogon
> vs. Distagon), which has naturally mush less lens errors to correct.
>
> -- Lassi



From: " E-MAIL" [email protected]>
To: [email protected]>
Subject: Russian Cameras
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2002 

Robert, I'm suprised no one answered your request for information on
the Yahoo russian camera group.  http://www.fedka.com/Frames/Main_Frame.htm
Fedka has high end priced stuff, is in NY and will replace or refund.
http://www.sovietcamera.com.ua/ Priluk is on the low end of the price
scale, ships from Russia and (claims) his gear is checked by a repairman.
The cameras are users but show up with case and lens cap and most purchasers
have been happy ..http://www.russiansouvenirs.com/cameras.htm  Frank is an
American in Moscow and the prices are slightly above average but are
usually very good. I hope this gives you some comparisons, shipping will be
$10 to $15, Holding the camera in your hand and not waiting 3 weeks is
worth??

Kurt Arico
Calif.

From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Re: Jupiter 3 & 8

I don't understand a lot of the discussion to this point.  The Carl Zeiss
Jena (CZJ) 2/5cm Sonnar was regarded as a fine lens but the 1.5/5cm Sonnar
was regarded as an epic design, and so it is -- "Mehr Lecht!" the Zeiss ad
campaign ran, in reflection of Goethe's dying words.  The 1.5 Sonnar is a
MUCH better optical design than is the f/2 lens, in almost every regard.
Similarly, the Jupiter-3 ought to outperform the Jupiter-8 in almost every
regard.

I own a single Jupiter-8 in LTM and a single Jupiter-3.  The Jupiter-3 is
clearly a superior lens, and is the one I use when I shoot with these 
guys.

 Similarly, I own a single Jupiter-3 in Contax/Kiev RF BM (thanks, Yuri!),
and six or seven Jupiter-8's.  As expected, the Jupiter-3 shoots rings
around the Jupiter-8's.  I also own a couple of 2/5cm CZJ Sonnars in LTM
(one collapsible and one rigid) and a single 1.5/5cm Sonnar in LTM.  The
f/1.5 Sonnar beats the f/2 versions.  Same-old with the Contax lenses I 
own.


The f/2 design was a fine design from a master designer, Ludwig Bertele.
But, then, he also designed the f/1.5 Sonnar and he regarded this as one of
his best two designs, along with the 4.5/21 Biogon.  In the end, the f/1.5
5cm Sonnar will go down in history as a titanic lens, clearly one of the
best out of the 20th century (after all, it took Leitz 30 years to equal
it, and they still haven't beaten it!)

Go with the Jupiter-3.  Any other conclusion is flawed and silly.

Better yet, buy five of each, with return privileges.  Do a shoot-off.
Keep one, and return nine.  The one you keep will be a Jupiter-3 ...

Marc

[email protected] 


From Leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 
From: "Don Dory" [email protected]>
Subject: Re: [Leica] Microcontrast

Think of microcontrast in the same way that Erwin discusses 40hz 
resolution.
So microcontrast is the ability of the system to accurately separate tones
in very fine detail.  The higher the microcontrast the greater the ability
to separate out small differences.

Glad you asked.

Don Dory
[email protected]

From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2002 
From: Kevin Kalsbeek [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Filter Sizes

Luis,

Here are some of the answers:
J-3: 40.5mm
J-9: 49mm
J-12: 49mm
J-11: 40.5mm
MR-2 Russar: 49mm
Helios 44-2: 49mm
Orion-15: 40.5mm
Rigid Industars: 40.5nn  (except I-50: 33mm ??)
Collapsible Industars: 36mm slip on
I think I'll let someone else take over!
Kevin

lanaya wrote:

Hello:
>
> I know you guys know everything or at least someone must know the
> answer (or lead me to it).  What's the filter size for the Leica
> screwmount lenses (Jupiter 3, Jupiter 9, Jupiter 12, Industar, ad
> nauseum...) and the Helios 44 (I think it is 67 mm's?).
>
> Luis

From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 
From: "lanaya" [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Med Fmt Pre-sale CLA

--- In russiancamera@y..., Frank Weir frankweir@y...> wrote:

Hello:


> Could someone list them for those of
> us who are fairly new to the list? I know of just one
> Ebay Russian seller who has his own repair services
> and I assume he would be one. Others?

Well, this is what I know.

Vikentiy from from www.sovietcamera.com.ua, offers repairs and sells
them as priluk on ebay.

I am confused with Michael Fourman from kievcamera, does he fix or
does he replaces?

Luis


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2002 
From: Kevin Kalsbeek [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Re: Med Fmt Pre-sale CLA

Hi

Mike has a repairman that he contracts with, I believe. If necessary, he
replaces.
 
Kevin


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 
From: "Jay Javier" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: True Leica Thread-Mount

mfg u.e.-

Try to grab one of those prewar FED and its lenses and you'll see what
Marc, Nathan, and everyone else mean.  The prewar FED doesn't have the
exact Leica mount specs.  It will not fully accomodate later M39 lenses,
and its lenses can fit with difficulty on later LTM and Leica II/III
series. If the lenses and bodies from both camps cross-fit, they would
mount with bad orientation. Rangefinder coupling also becomes incorrect
when this cross-fitting is attempted.  Pre-war FED lenses, per my
observation, have a shorter rf coupling cam - it doesn't jut out as far as
'true' LTM lenses.  Hence, a postwar objective won't have correct rf
coupling in a prewar FED, and prewar FED lenses will behave similarly with
postwar cameras or real Leicas for that matter.  Of course the camera's rf
can be adjusted to work with the lenses, but they no longer be correct for
the other lenses.

One J-3 LTM (ca.'56) I recently got fit my Zorki and FED cameras, as other
lenses would, but doesn't with my 'real' Leicas. It won't mount on my
Canon IVS2 either.

Another point to consider with soviet LTM mounts- even with the correct or
almost correct thread pitch, the thread entry and exit points are not
standard.

In Leicas and its Japanese clones, the threads always start and end at
the same place.  With soviet versions, this could be anywhere, and results
in having lenses stopping at different places.  Case in point, Industars
whose 'infinity' positions stop anywhere between 7:00 and 10:00 positions.

In Leica and Canon, this is almost always at 7:00.  This is likely why
soviet LTM lenses have full barrel rf cams.  Leitz and Canon objectives
like the Hektor 13,5 or the Serenar 8,5, 10, and 13,5 have "narrow
couplers".  These lenses require precise 'parking' or else the lens cam
and the camera rf sensor won't coincide.  This is also the reason why
these particular lenses are almost impossible to use with soviet LTM
cameras.

BTW, Wartime Canon had the "j" mount which like the old FED mount, was
39mm, but of a different pitch.

Jay


[email protected] wrote:

>This I can=B4t prove. There aren=B4t many of those lenses around. The  post
>war lenses all fit to all fed or zorkij and to leica 2 and 3. I=B4ve
>tested that. To be precise: this is tested with Jupiter 35/50/85/135
>and summar, elmar 50mm, prewar Leica and postwar Fed, Zorkij, Mir.
>
>mfg u.e.

From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 
From: "yupiter3" [email protected]
Subject: LTM Focusing Error sources

Many of the posts over the last few days have been interesting..;
here are some focusing error sources:

(1) Camera lens flange to film plane guides not at 28.8mm spacing.

(2) Rangefinder cam surface or Leica roller not aligned at infinity;
using known good lens or test gage. (the approx 7.5mm dimension)

(3) Rangefinder is off at close ranges; but is ok at infinity..
    (Jay mentioned this about the Zorki/FED)

(4) Lens rear flange to infinity focus is not 28.8 mm ; when lens
scale is on infinity.....(Like my Jupiter -9 that was .015 inch off;
because a duffus mixed up the lens parts after regreasing)..


(5) Lens cam surface to lens mounting surface is not correct at
infinity....ie when the lens is set to infinity; all LTM lens should
have the same distance; approx 7.5mm (Yes too my Jupiter -9 was wrong
like this too!)

(6) Lens cam surface HELIX and lens focus HELIX is not matched to the
exact lens focal length.....Oh the plot thickens here because a 50.8
mm lens requires a slightly different pitch than a 50.0 mm lens....;
but both require the same lens cam dimension to lens flange distance;
for each focus position...ie Infinity; 10 meters; 2 meters etc.....

The original lens cam movement was designed to be 1:1 for the 50 to
55 mm Leica lens; in the 1930's......Philip



From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Soviet lenses resoloution

Lens          Middle      Edge
Vega 11y      70          40
Industar 50y  60          20
Industar 96y  60          24
Industar 90y  50          25
Industar 23y  50          13
Industar 100y 70          35 another document says 40

I also found a document that says the Volna 9 has a resolution of 47 middle and
30 edge and a second that says 42 middle and 30 edge.

I can find nothing on the Helios 103 1.8/53 for Kiev rangfinders.

Nathan Dayton
www.commiecameras.com
--

From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 
From: "Per Backman" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Soviet lenses resoloution

[email protected] wrote:

>Lens          Middle      Edge
>Vega 11y      70          40
I found 65/35 at 5X enlargement.
>Industar 50y  60          20
>Industar 96y  60          24
>Industar 90y  50          25
>Industar 23y  50          13
>Industar 100y 70          35 another document says 40

Vega 29u (50/2,8), has a resolution power of 75 l/mm in the center and 60 
l/mm at the edge

>I also found a document that says the Volna 9 has a resolution of 47 middle
and 30 edge and a second that says 42 middle and 30 edge.

The factory specs say "not less than 42 in the center and 30 at the edge" at
infinity (at 24cm it is 42/20). This is by fully open aperture, in practice you
would not use it as the depth of field is to small.

It seems to have been a policy to set the specs so low, that no complaints
could be expected.

>I can find nothing on the Helios 103 1.8/53 for Kiev rangfinders.
Helios 103 53/1,8 has a resolution power of 55 l/mm in the center and 28 
l/mm at the edge.

Per

From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 
From: "Per Backman" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: More than one version of Volna-9

....

Nathan posted the resolutions already, but it is important to remember,
that these figures can not be compared to figures published by companies
in other countries, the Soviet numbers are always low in comparison. Out
of paractice I can say, that at least Industar-23u is a good lens,
probably all Industars beat three-element cheap German or Japanese
enlarging lenses. The Soviet ones are hard to find, I tried to find some
Vega enlarging lenses, when I was in Riga, but without succes.

Helios 103 53/1,8 has a resolution power of 55 l/mm in the center and 28
l/mm at the edge.

Vega 29u (50/2,8), has a resolution power of 75 l/mm in the center and 60
l/mm at the edge

Sovietskoie Foto was published at least from the april 1926 as the journal
of the Journalists Union in the USSR. It was in Russian, but with a
resume in English.

Per

From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 
From: Kevin Kalsbeek [email protected]
Subject: Re: Soviet lenses resoloution

Hi Per,

David Anderson of the now very defunct Kiev Report believed that the Soviets
tested their lenses to line PAIRS per millimeter, rather than lines per mm.

This would effectively double the resolution. This makes more sense- at least to me, 
considering the results they appear to be capable of.

Do you have any info about this?
Regards,
Kevin

Regards,
Kevin

From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Soviet lenses resoloution

Kevin,

ALL lens tests are done in line pairs per millimeter.  It's usually just
written as "lines per millimeter" in a sort of shorthand.

Bob
....


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001
From: Kevin Kalsbeek [email protected]
Subject: Re: Non Russian lenses for Zorki etc

Hi Jay,

To your list of compatible lenses, with barrel couplers, I can add the
A.Schacht Ulm 2.8/90mm Travenar.

I think some of the Steinheils are also compatible.

Kevin

J-2 wrote:

> >
> >Please add to my list....and or correct it!; regards Philip
> >
> >
> >
> Philip,
>
> >From my *very* limited experience with non Russian LTM lenses, this is 
> >what I've found :
>
> [1] All Wide Angle Leitz Lenses- 2,8 and 3,5 cm
>
> [2] Wide Angle Canon Lenses- 2,8 and 3,5 cm
>
> [3] All 5cm Leitz Lenses- Summar, Summitar, Elmar, and Summicron
>
> [4] All 5cm Canon Lenses - marked "Serenar" or "Canon"
>
> [5] 8,5 and 9 cm Leitz Lenses
>
> All above lenses have full "barrel" couplers which do not require precise
> 'parking' when mounted on an LTM thread. (Leica, Canon, and various 
Japanese Leica copies have rollers on their rf cams and have mounts which 
have precise entry and stop points)

>
> Leitz Hektor 13,5 cm, and Canon/Serenar 8,5, 10, and 13,5 cm lenses have
> non-barrel type couplers.
>
> HOWEVER....
>
> ...Some Soviet LTM RFs like early FED 1 have a 39mm thread mount which only
*resembles*  true LTM.   Some Leitz/Canon or even later soviet LTM lenses may
not mount fully. At best, the lens would mount with its engravings at the
bottom.
>
> ...Likewise, some early Canon RF lenses ("J" mount) were not true LTM.
>

> ...Soviet LTM RFs can be found with varying lens working distances- many
were actually 'dedicated' to the lens they came with.  Leitz and Canon LTM
lenses have a standard 28,8 mm working distance, and so did their cameras.  
This is not always true with Soviet LTM.  For instance, a FED 1 will foc
with its FED lens, but a Summicron mounted on it may not be able to
deliver sharp images.

> ...Some have reported success with mounting lenses like the Canon 8,5 or
10 cm lenses (both have non-barrel type couplers) on their later Zorkii.

> This would depend on how the lens mount was milled, and how the
rangefinder was made.  Some rangefinders, after correction for BOTH
infinity and close focus, will have its sloped sensor cam positioned such
that the curved side is actually facing outwards.  Lacking any 'point' to
catch on the lens coupler allows full mounting and coupling.

>
> Jay


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2001
From: "Jeffery Smith" [email protected]
Subject: Hexanon Focusing on non-Konica bodies


For what it's worth, I put my Hexanon 90/2.8 on a Bessa-T and shot an
image of a small nail at about 15 feet wide open. The nail was in focus,
so there doesn't appear to be a big disparity in practice. For those of
you new to this topic, several folks have been concerned that Hexanon
lenses focus on a different plane than do Leica lenses.

Jeffery Smith
New Orleans, LA


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Hexanon Focusing on non-Konica bodies


It would be interesting to know if you get the same sharp results at the closest
focus distance (3.5 feet ?) wide open.

The closer your focus distance, the more likely you are to find focusing
difficulties, if there are any with the particular lens you are shooting.

Stephen



From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sun, 09 Dec 2001 
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Hexanon Focusing on non-Konica bodies


the problem on the Hexar RF bodies seems to be where a particular body
landed in the plus / minus film plane tolerances, this explains why some
Hexar RF bodies focus Leica M lenses correctly, and others like mine
don't.

not sure what is happening with the Hexar lenses.  it might be a good idea
to check all of them wide open and at the closest focusing distance.  
they might all have consistent focus, or different, it would be
interesting to see the results either way.

Stephen

...


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001
From: [email protected]
Subject: Russian Lenses on Bessa-R in Fotomagazin

Sorry it took me so long. I took full advantage of having Bob's
Fotomagazin and read I've read these magazines regularly before, but the
last one was a year ago. It is interesting how everything loses identity
when given some freedom. Sovetskoe Foto, the biggest and the only photo
magazine in the USSR was awfully boring and political. The pictures,
however, were always high-quality, very conservative, nothing creative.
TExtbook style.  And NO ADs!!! Yes, there were times and countries were
magazines had no ads. The current Fotomagazin is absolutely commercial
thing, as bad (or good)  as PopPhoto and such. It is, however, well made
and some articles can be read with interest. Bad news for us, Russian
camera collectors - practically no Russian made hardware is advertised ,
only foreign. The prices as close or higher than the US prices. I think
this magazine is for rich people only, not for everyone.


The Bessa-R article was a general camera review. (Voigtlander Bessa-R.  
Reborn nostalgia. by Andrei Sheklein)

 A large portion of the article is dedicated to the Voigtlander brand and
its history, and the lenses made for this camera. Some points about the
Russian lenses used with the camera:

- Sometimes aluminum threads of Russian lenses do not screw in easily in a
steel mount of the Bessa

- The pictures show Jupiter-11 and Russar MR-1 mounted on the Bessa-R. The
J-11 is shown with a universal finder (in the wrong position!) and the
Russar with its own 20 mm finder.

- Only two lenses are mentioned - Orion-15 and Russar MR-1. There are
comparison shots made with a Russar and a Heliar 15/4.5). Heliar is the
obvious winner. [I think I'd do better with my Russar though. Maybe not as
good as the Heliar, but better than the picture in the article.]

- The meter is off when used with the Orion and Russar. The author
believes this is because these lenses dissipate light more than modern
multi-coated lenses. [I think this because of the rear elements of these
lenses fooling the meter]

- Russian lenses have wider tolerances than the precision Bessa-R. It is
advised to calibrate Russian lenses to be used with the Bessa to a tighter
back focus. [This is not something new, body-lenses calibration was a
common procedure in the USSR when RFs were popular]


From russian camera mailing list
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 
From: "wanatunda" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Jupiter 3 Bokeh versus Leica & Canon

I agree!

Framing the shots in a more uniform manner would have given better
comparisons. Outdoor testing such as this with the sun position,
clouds etc are spotty enough but sheez use a tripod ok?

The thing that impressed me the most is that the Jupiters and
Industars for Goodness sake are being compared with Leica!!!!

HELLO???? Look here and you'll see Industars going head to head with
a Leicas!!!

http://www.comworks.gr.jp/~taka/hobby/camera/Lens/LensTest/

Of course the test is not scientific, like I care, but still the
price difference alone in these lenses could add up to a whole lotta
film, filters and a plane ticket to the Virgin Islands.
Ah yes put the Lime in the Coconut and shake it all up!

Felix


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001
From: "Per Backman" [email protected]>
Subject: Re: Differences Between Industar 22 and 50

 J-2 wrote:

>Hi Jon
>
>Authorities state that the late Industar 50 had a higher resolution than the I
22 (by a few lpm).  Having the opportunity to have, use, and compare both, I'd
say that the I 50 is better.  The non-collapsible version, though not as pretty
as the svelte :) collapsibles, may even be better in the sense that its rigid 
body leaves less chance for misalignment and similar troubles.

>The Industars appear to be more of Tessar clones, rather than Elmar
>copies.

All Industars are four element triplets with the last two elements cemented,
which is what the Tessar also is. Other Tessar clones are Elmar (Leitz), Skopar (Voigtl�nder),
Meritar (Ludwig), Primotar (Meyer), Solinar (Agfa), Isar (Rodenstock), Belar
(Meopta), Xenar (Schneider) and many, many others.

The Industar50 is supposed to be better than Industar22, that is the  reason for
it. What is better is of course individual, there are other things that matter
than the resolution.

Per B.
http://hem.fyristorg.com/pbackman/


From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 
From: "Mark PEARCE" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] What's the 'best buy' in 50mm RF lenses..?


Victor;

I can't speak for the J-3, but I've used six different Jupiter-8 (50mm f2)
In both Contax and LTM, and every one has been outstanding! I shot two
Contax, one with a Sonnar and one with a J-8. The results were
indistinguishable from each other.

Mark
                 

From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] What's the 'best buy' in 50mm RF lenses..?


I'm working with a guy in the ex-USSR who's working on USM 42 to L39
adapters.  They won't be RF coupled, of course, but the main point is to get
access to cheap USM wide angles that can be zone-focused.

If that flies, it will be interesting to see if L39 to LM adapters are
within the realm of the possible!  At $50 a pop, could they possibly be
overpriced?

- Dave  


From leica topica mailing list
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Leica fiscal report for 2000/2001


i just happened to be reading puts' site that after the CL and M5,
leitz "decided to stop the RF production and concentrate on the SLR
line.  only a few supporters of the M-line saved the M production.

machinery and production were transferred to canada, where the
m4-2 (M4 mark 2) was resurrected in 1978."

(http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/choosem.html)

ironic.

-rei



From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001 
From: Rolfe Tessem [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] "New" Russian Leica copies

Hello all,

Forgive me if this topic has been beaten to death, but I only recently
subscribed to the list.

Does anyone have any direct experience with the Leica II copies
currently being sold on Web sites such as this one:

http://www.russiansouvenirs.com/leica.htm

I assume this is a FED dressed up in Leica trappings, but am interested
in build quality, quality of the 5cm collapsible Elmar clone, etc. If
these cameras are serviceable, do they generally need a CLA out of the
box?

Thanks in advance for any info.

- --
Rolfe Tessem    


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2001 
From: "[email protected]" [email protected]
Subject: Some depth: New LTM Hexanon 35mm f/2 UC-Hexanon in LTM


Since Tom A is the only other person I know of who has an LTM 35/2
Hexanon, and he probably doesn't want to be bothered with giving gory
details (actually, it doesn't matter because that lens is no longer
produced), I will endeavor to write a little about the new 35/2 LTM
Hexanon.


Background ---------- 

The 35/2 UC-Hexanon is Konica's third 35mm f/2 rangefinder computation in
seven years.  The first was the Hexar AF lens (which was released in LTM
as the 35/2L Hexar lens); the second was the 35/2 M-Hexanon, which is a
more modern retrofocus design.  The first and final versions are listed as
7 elements in 6 groups which are believed to be close copies of the last
non-ASPH Summicron.  This, I believe is because the original Summicron has
a cemented group that is airspaced in the Hexanon.  The block diagrams I
have seen make this lens a close match of the 35/1.8 Nikkor:

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dante/352/352.html

Lens Construction
-----------------
The UC-Hexanon is not like the M-Hexanons (or current Leica lenses), in
several different ways.

-- First, the UC is lacquered brass, rather than enameled alloy.  You can
see this by looking at the aperture numbers, which shows signs of having
been stamped from a malleable metal rather being than die-cast into a
nonductile alloy.

-- Second, the "feet" scale is filled in a yellow-orange color (like
Leica), rather than the orange used with the M-Hexanons.


-- Third, the aperture control is oval, just like Leica, rather than the
round ones used on M-Hexanons.

-- Fourth, there are incidentals, such as the lens cap reading "Hexanon"  
and not "Konica," a real leather lens case, and a vented lacquered hood
(which is safely in the box.

-- Finally, there is no red dot.  This makes mounting the lens 
interesting.

Visual comparison to a  Summicron
----------------------------------

Sorry about the lousy digital picture (makes everything look bad) - here
is a comparison (color balance is off, but you get the idea).

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dante/memorex.jpg


-- In terms of size, the lens is almost exactly the same as the 35/2
Summicron, even down to the dimensions of the Leica-style focus tab (which
you really need when the lens is this small).  The barrel diameter is
smaller, and the "ears" on the aperture ring are smaller on the Konica.

-- The only difference is that the lens stops at 0.9m in the close range,
instead of 0.7m, as on the Leica

-- It has a 43mm filter size, and takes a lot more effort to turn the
aperture control (feels a lot like a Canon 35/2 aperture ring, except that
it has half-stops).

-- Damping is slightly heavier than the Summicron

-- Coatings look identical, except that the front element on the Konica
reflects green a la Nikon Integrated Coatings

-- The rear element is significantly flatter and does not protrude as much
into the camera.  No shroud is needed to protect the rear element, as it
sits inside the focusing cam, even with the lens at infinity


And now... to the pictures.

The first thing that is striking about the UC-Hexanon is the bokeh magic
(this much you can see online):

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~dante/bokeh.jpg
(it is from a small print, so it is soft)

The blur of out of focus objects goes well beyond the pale of the original
Hexar lens and even past what I have been able to do with the Summicron.
The new lens manages to achieve very clean disk-bokeh (not the specular
highlights).

When I shot both the UC-Hexanon (on a Leitz adapter) and M-Summicron
(1979-1997 version) at f/5.6, I was stunned to see that there was no
readily identifiable difference in equalized color prints.  On close
inspection, there were two differences:

-- a tiny bit more snap in the Hexanon (and we are not talking a very tiny
amount) in the shadow separation

-- less flare from specular highlights (sun reflection in car windshields)
in the Hexanon

I then checked the negatives with a 15x loupe and could not identify any
difference whatsoever in sharpness at center and edge.  This is not much
of a surprise because comparison to the Summicron at the Photodo site
shows identical MTF graphs for both lenses (at f/2, and identical when the
Summicron is at f/8 and the Hexanon at f/5.6).  Human eyes probably aren't
good enough to see any really subtle resolution differences.

Upshot
------
    I think that if someone wanted a screw mount version of the 35/2
Summicron pre-ASPH, this is it.  The lens has some promise, since it can
be mounted on Leicas, Hexars, Canons (finally, a pleasant-bokeh lens that
fits a P...) and Bessas (this actually makes a nice package).

    These will no doubt be hard to get (given the low quantity), but even
listing at $1,000, they are cheaper than the screwmount-ASPH, which is
chrome only, a lot bigger, and to some, less desirable from a bokeh
standpoint.



from Leica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 4 Oct 2001 
From: "Jim Laurel" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] System Compatibility and Equipment Reliability

Marc James Small wrote:
> So much for tales of gloom and doom and despair about Leica quality. This
> is the photographic equivalent of the brick shit-house.


I've said it before...Leicas are just like Land Rovers.  It's not
uncommon, in my experience, to get a defective one right out of the box,
but once you get them sorted out, they are very durable and reliable.  As
you all know, I've had to return 4 defective M6s and 1 R6.2 bought new
over the last 3 years for problems ranging from RF misalignment to shutter
bounce, shutter button lock up and electronics failures.


That's why NO ONE gets to touch my M6s but me!  The pair I use normally
have been round the world at least 5 times and I trust them implicitly.  
But if one gets damaged, I just know I'm in for another long process of
testing/returning/testing/returning, etc., until I find one that actually
works.  Seems to happen to me every time!

Veering off topic:....
...


The Leica M is truly the Land Rover of the photographic world!

- --Jim Laurel


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2001 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: LTM for enlarger

I have used the following on my Beseler 23C II enlarger:

2/5cm CZJ Sonnar T, rigid
2/50 Jupiter-8
1.5/5cm CZJ Sonnar T, rigid
1.5/50 Jupiter-3 (both an early chrome and late black one)
2/8.5cm CZJ Sonnar T
2/85 Jupiter-9

All performed more than adequately.  The 2/8.5cm CZJ Sonnar T was
especially useful with really dense MF negatives.

I normally use a 2.8/50 Rodenstock APO-Rodagon and a 4/80 Beseler-HD
(Rodagon) on my Beseler and a Leitz 2.8/40 Focotar-WA on my Leitz V-35.
(Yes, I will be upgrading the 4/80 to an APO-Rodagon or APO-Componon or
the like, as soon as a cheap one pops up on e-Bay, and I'll be upgrading
the Focotar to a 2.8/40 or 4/45 APO-Componon when the same condition
applies!)

Marc

[email protected] 


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2001 
From: "Emmanuel Seynaeve" [email protected]>
Subject: interesting : Minolta vs. Leica

Hello,

If you like Leica optics, but you can't afford them, buy (manual) Minolta. This is
the conclusion of  7 years of slide projection, thousands of slides,
Leica's and Minolta's all mixed up in slide shows.

Our films : Fuji Sensia 100, replaced by Provia 100, and finally
we ended up with Provia F as the best film for our purposes :
mostly nature ( from landscape to macro and everything
between), villages, travel ... Almost no portrait.

Our slides are projected with Leitz projectors with Colorplan 90,
Elmaron 120 and Elmaron 150mm. Some of the best projection
lenses on the market.


The lenses I mostly use are : MD 28 f2.8, MC 35 f1.8 Rokkor HH,
MD 50 1.7 Rokkor, MD 100 f2.5, MC 135  f2.8 Rokkor PF.

My friend's lenses : 35 f2 Summicron-R, 50 f2 Summicron-R, 90 f2
Summicron-R and 135 f2.8 Elmar-R.

It will be a VERY difficult job to separate our slides by an outsider,
and even my friend, who's a german lenses fan, shares this opinion.
He also prefers Minolta as the closest Leica match in japanese lenses.

The bokeh looks quite similar. Especially the 100mm (great lens)
matches very well the Summicron 90mm. The MC 135 can compete
easily with his Leica counterpart (from the same era at least).
Contrast, color rendition and saturation also are very close. The
environmental conditions at the moment  when the picture was taken,
make much more the difference than the lenses themselves.


No sharpness problems on screen also.
We have never compared MTBF curves of both brands.

Some people out there with a similar experience ?

regards,

Emmanuel  Seynaeve


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001
From: "Jay Y Javier" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Any experiences using original Leica lens on a Russian FED/Zorki body?

Alfie

Normally, Summitars and Elmars work fine with Russian LTM cameras.  I said
'normally' because many of the FED/Zorki bodies have non-standard specs like
lens mount entry and exit threads (this would make the lenses stop at different
places), and more importantly, working distances between the lens flange and
film plane do not always conform to the Leitz 28,8mm requirment.

On some LTM bodies, particularly early FED 1, the infinity tab of Leitz lenses
might actually stop in front of either rf window or even the vf itself. And
non-conformity with the 28,8mm register will result in improper focus - and
this will be so regardless of how the rf is adjusted.  The 'cure' for this 
of course is to adjust a given camera's working distance until the required value
is obtained.

Some long lenses, particularly the Hektor 13,5 or any long lens from Canon, may
not mount at all, or couple with the rf cam.  These lenses have
couplers which are not 'barrel' shaped, and may miss the camera rf sensor 
when mounted.

Good news is that the Jupiters and Industars won't pale when compared with
Elmars and Summitars- Russian glass might even better!  My Leica M3 now has a
Jupiter 8 for its normal lens, and after seeing the pictures made with it, I no
longer miss the Summicron which used to be there :).

Jay

[email protected] wrote:

>Hi everyone,
>
>Has anyone used original Leitz lens such as Summitar, Summar, Elmar,
>and Summicrons on a Russian FED/Zorki body before? How did the
>pictures turn out? How did the Leica optics compare to the Russian
>optical quality such as Jupiter? I would presume that a Leica lens on
>a Russian body is not all that much different than a Leica LSM except
>for the viewfinder/rangerfinder aspect of it.
>
>Alfie


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Re: Any experiences using original Leica lens on a Russian FED/Zorki body?

Just a quick note here. Pre-war FEDs have a different thread for the lens mount
and other lenses will not mount.

Nathan Dayton
www.commiecameras.com


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Re: Any experiences using original Leica lens on a Russian FED/Zorki body?

It can be hit or miss, but in most case I was able to mount (and even use)
postwar Jupiters on prewar FED-NKVDs. The thread entry point is definitely
different on the prewar FEDs, so the postwar lenses would mount "rotated" 
by some 90 degrees.

Yuri


From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 
From: Michael Darnton [email protected]
Subject: Leather straps


I just bought myself one, and the maker, Seth Levine at M-Classics
(mclassics.com) reminded me that he doesn't advertise them himself,
relying on word of mouth. So here's the word of mouth: a great retro
leather strap, like Leica used to make (unlike, and better than,
anything currently available elsewhere), for $23. I just ordered two
more, so now I'll have four. I think everyone with a Leica needs at
least one. :-) They start out stiff, but about six months of use loosens
them up nicely. He doesn't mention them on the website--write him an
e-mail if you're interested in the details.

--Michael


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 
From: "Shawn Low" [email protected]
Subject: Russian Lenses on Bessa R

Hi,

I am using the Industar 61 on the Bessa R and L.  I have other Voigtlander
lenses as well.  The lens seems to focus well.

As mentioned earlier, Jup 12 doen'st fit coz the rear element protrude too
deeply.  The Jupiter 3 (50 f1.5) fits and focuses well.  Excellent quality
and fast as well!

The 85 f2.8 seems to be a hit and miss.  Some ppl I know are having
diffficulties focusing at certain ranges.  Talk about wear on the threads
has been mentioned.

All in all, as with russian equiptment, keep your fingers crossed and hope
you don't get a defective piece!


The Bessa R is not a bad camera.  The metering is a godsend and relatively
accurate.  The build quality can't compare with Leicas but still not bad.

I have a Fed 5b but this sits at home because the Bessas and my Leica M3 
are sooooo much easier to use.

The important thing is finding a camera that I am comfortable and fast and
easy to work with.

If you have extra cash, try it out.

www.cameraquest.com has a good write up on this camera and heaps of other
excellent RFs.

Cheers,
Shawn


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2001 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian Lenses on Bessa R

[email protected] writes:

 >>I am using the Industar 61 on the Bessa R and L.  I have other 
Voigtlander lenses as well.  The lens seems to focus well.


I sold several lenses to a Bessa-R owner. He preferred the black versions of
Jupiter-8 and Jupiter-12. I only played with these lenses on the Bessa-R, but
he shot with them and was very happy. The J-12 fits and works fine, the
problem is with the meter. Theresr element gets very close to the sensor
causing gross errors (4 stops?).

Yuri


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2001 
From: kelvin [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian screw mount lens on WHAT ELSE???


Not sure about quality (for example, Jay tells us many Jupiter-9 lenses
need their focusing coupler adjusted), but that said... the should
all work except the Jupiter 35/2.8 which has a protruding rear element
that interferes with the metering cell on the Bessa R.


From rangefinder mailng list:
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 
From: Winfried Buechsenschuetz [email protected]
Subject: RE: Leica Copy

Paulo Moreira wrote:
> Hi list!
>
> The MOM is not a Leica copy, it is a true original rangefinder concept
> with
> a focal plane and interchangeable lens. The lens mount is not Leica
> screw
> mount, but M42, the original Contax S mount (best known as Praktica or
> Pentax secrew mount). The rangefinder only works with the 50 mm lens,
> and no
> other lens was made for the camera.

Even the rangefinder of the LTM Leicas generically only works with the
50mm lens. All other focal lengths have to use a rangefinder actuating
tube or cam moved by an auxiliary helical or cam simulating the movement
of the 50mm lens barrel when focussing.


>In theory you could mount a normal SLR
> M42 lens but of course, they are not rangefinder coupled, so you'd have
> to
> guess focus. Anyway, a MOM with a nice Flektogon 20/2,8 seems a very
> nice idea.

In reality, you also have to compensate for the completely different
back focal length of M42 SLR lenses. I guess that with an easy to
manufacture adapter ring you could do that. BTW, since the back focal
length of the LTM is much shorter than that of M42 SLR lenses, it is
possible to use some available adapters. If I ever get one, I will get
me a cheapo 28mm M42 lens, too. Focussing will be no problem with the
DOF of that focal length.

BTW, strange enough, some russian SLRs used the M39 Leica thread, but
again with a different back focal length which does not allow usage of
LTM lenses on those SLRs although the mount will fit. Strange idea to
introduce M42 mount on a rangefinder like the Mometta, there have been
quite a couple of M39 lenses at that time.

Winfried


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: Are Jupiter-8s all the same?

[email protected] wrote:
>
>I have noticed that the Jupiter-8 for Zorki and for Kiev rangefinders
>are not exactly the same. For example, the coating of a Jupiter-8 is
>blueish for Zorki while the coating of a Jupiter-8 is pink for a Kiev.
>It seems that they are made by different factories since they have
>different factory logos.
>
>My question is that are all the Russian factories more or less the
>same quality wise or there is one that stands out above the others?

All Kiev-RF lenses -- save for the original ZK and BK lenses made at
Krasnagorsk -- were made at the Arsenal Plant, either at the main facility
in Kiev or at the satellite works in Uman.  The LTM Jupiter-8 production
all came from KMZ, to my knowledge.  The Arsenal lenses do seem to have 
the edge mechanically, but they appear identical optically.

The color of the coatings is irrelevant:  this merely marks the era in
which the lens was manufactured.

Marc

[email protected]


From leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 
From: "Austin Franklin" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] Bokeh  - proven myth ?

> Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> >It's not existentialism, it's purely physics, and not that difficult to
> >understand, or see.
> >
> >http://www.darkroom.com/MiscDocs/bokeh.pdf
> >
> What an excellent article! Thanks for the link - I feel like I
> understand it a little better now, though I much prefer to just look at
> the results of my lenses and decide which has a more pleasing bokeh.
>
> - marc

Marc,

My pleasure!  Always glad to provide substance over speculation ;-)

Regards and Happy New Year!

Austin


From leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 
From: "Austin Franklin" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] Bokeh  - Leica myth.

Dante,

> It is a myth that "bokeh" is an inherent or intentionally-created
> characteristic of any Leica lens.

Why?  Do you have proof of this?  Did you read this:

http://www.darkroom.com/MiscDocs/bokeh.pdf

It clearly shows that one CAN design bokeh "into" a lense.  How do you
know what characteristics of a design are intentional and not intentional?  
Just because something is inherent, doesn't mean it wasn't intentional.


> What we call bokeh is a complex of aberrations in out of focus areas. As
> Erwin Puts is quick to point out, for about 75 years, Leica has
> attempted to
> design all aberrations out of their lenses.  As they become more and more
> successful at eliminating them, the bokeh gets worse and worse.

I don't agree with that.  How come my Zeiss 110/2 has the best bokeh of
any lense I have ever seen, and it's a very modern lense?  As well as my
85/1.4 Zeiss for my Contax?  This may also be true with the Leica lenses,
it's just that I don't have any of the latest designs, like the 90/2 to
see if the bokeh is "worse", but it sure isn't "worse" on my 50/1.4 and my
75/1.4.

Austin



From leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002
From: "[email protected]" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Bokeh  - Leica myth.

I think we are talking at cross-purposes.  My comment was that Leica AG
(and Leitz before it) is purposefully vanquishing aberrations, and in
doing so is designing bokeh "out" of its lenses.  As you and I are aware
(and yes, I read that article several times over the past year), other
companies (Nikon, Konica, and Zeiss) are indeed designing it back in.  It
was a statement on Leica's core values in lens design, not on the ability
of someone to design for (or against) bokeh.

.....


From leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2002 
From: [email protected] (Georg Bauer)
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Bokeh  - proven myth ?

        Henry Ting [email protected] writes:
> physics". Where I'm standing, existentialism is what
> exist, proven and controlled after my experiment. Not
> at all quacky, don't you think ?

Yeah. You sample two lenses and conclude your utter wisdom. Laughable.

Sorry, but to really comprehend the complex thematics of optics, you
for example should try out a Hektor with a 18-blade-diaphragm against
some of those el-cheapo 4 or 5-blade-diaphragm lenses. _Then_ you will
see that much more than just the focal-length is important to
out-of-focus areas. The complete lense-design comes into play, as the
bending of the light falling onto the film plane is what makes
different out-of-focus rendering.

It's not a leica myth, it's actually not a myth at all, it's just plain
and stupid optics. Oh, and it is not connected to Leica at all, it's
just that Leica-photog's tend to notice it more, since many of them
shoot with full opened or almost full opened aperture.

There is nothing funny about seeing no big difference between high-end
Nikon lenses and Leica lenses. It's not as if Nikon produces just
garbage ...

Oh, another nice subject for testing would be to run a zoom lense
against a prime lense. Should give you additional input for drawing
conclusions.


bye, Georg


From leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 02 Jan 2002 
From: Steven Alexander [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Bokeh  - proven myth ?

>
> Quite simply I have never related to the effect, as it's put forward by some
> very good shooters here.  I'm always looking at the content factor / moment
> with never a thought about the effect of bohek, as bokeh happens just like
> breathing, in particular when shooting primarily wide open.
>
> Sure I use foreground to frame and do that kind of thing any number of
> times, but I use it as a framing factor to enhance the scene and not because
> of the bokeh factor. I also, without thought, know if I'm working with a 180
> wide open and shooting people at close range, the bkgrd will be a mush of
> colour or greys in B&W

> The question is,  when you were shooting this photo or similar, do you have
> the thought in mind of how the bokeh factor will look for the lens you're
> using? As in a specific thought, "the bokeh will look great for this xyz
> lens" ? And if all of a sudden you think,  "Oops, I better change to the XXX
> lens for a better bokeh."
>
> Maybe I'm wrong on this whole bokeh question simply because I can't get past
> the thought that while I'm shooting an assignment that I'd be thinking about
> the bokeh effect rather than concentrating on the precise moment for the
> "perfect picture."
>
> Or am I seriously missing something? Over to you my friend.

My question after 4 decades of professional shooting 2 of them in Washington
D.C., shooting side by side with many of those folks mentioned by Sal, is
there really any discernible difference between any 180mm lens wide open
focused at 7 feet rendering of the OOF background?  This question applies to
any focal length used in a like manner.

I too, as Ted, Sal and other pros am always open to learn from others but
in my experience I see no difference in this characteristic of a Leica
optic and any other top quality optic.  And sure would not decide on this
idea how, from where, or at what point to focus any given picture.  There
are other differences in the optics that led to my complete switch to
Leica optics.  An agency that represented my work had an entrance that
opened to the editing space below and certain images at that distance
appeared different, more vibrant, cleaner color, and something different.  
It wasn't film, lab or anything else except the optics( I discovered some
of these images were mine created with my M equipment so after much angst
I parted wonderful Nikon stuff for Leica R stuff.  This change had nothing
to do with OOF background plain of (out of) focus.


From leica user group mailing list:
Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 
From: Mark Rabiner [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] M7 UPDATE

I just got off the phone with Deep-Throat who HAS THE CAMERA IN HAND.
It looks just like an M6 TTL until you look real close.

The shutter speed dial goes from 4 seconds to 1000th.

A line between 125/60 to indicate the two batteryless back-up shutter 
speeds.

DX which is over rideable on the back of the camera. A different film speed dial.
No din. They'll be a din about that it's been gone for what? 3 decades?

A collar around the shutter release like on the F3 as an on off switch.
        (A very good thing it sounds like to me)


A longer shutter release throw. Probably as a method to freeze an exposure setting.
We're checking into that.

Talk about probable points of contention. But we'll see how it works in actually operation.

But the overall impression is positive.

Will probably update as soon as a roll goes though the camera.


Mark Rabiner
Portland, Oregon USA
http://www.markrabiner.com


From leica user group:
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 
From: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] re: leica M lens ownership figures and calculations

Does anyone have any statistics or figures on Leica M series lens
production numbers and sales figures? I have been doing some research and
would like to check the following calculations and assumptions:

2000/1 leica M camera/lens sales = 49.8 million euros = $44 million US$
http://www.leica-camera.com/imperia/md/content/pdf/investorre/annualrepo/19.pdf

12,000 sales M bodies (6,000 R) in 1999 per Erwin Puts
http://people.smu.edu/rmonagha/brondeath.html#1999

16% growth to 2000/1, so 1/6th, so add 2,000 M bodies for growth to 2000/1
12,000+2,000 = 14,000 M bodies  [growth stats in above pdf annual report]


price M6TTL.58 = $1,995 (B&H Price) [www.bhphotovideo.com]
price M6TTL.72 = $2,695 (B&H Price)
price 50mm f/2 = $995 (B&H price)

14,000 M body/lens kits * $3,000/kit = $42 million M sales versus $44
million total M related sales. Typical markups for mail-order sales like
B&H are generally 5-10%. However, a recent hong kong poster noted that new
Leica M can be had there for $1,400 US$. Whatever this markup might be,
it seems to provide the $$ for buying additional Leica lenses per the
above calculations, but at approx. $3,000 US per leica M body sold, that
doesn't seem to provide much $$ for buying many Leica lenses (1 to 2 
only?)

So there doesn't seem to be many Leica M lenses sold per Leica M body
sold, if these statistics and calculations are correct. The implication is
that the average M body has circa 2 Leica made M series lenses or less
produced for it. This is roughly the same as for Hasselblad lenses (half
the lenses were normal 80mm lenses, and many users had only the one lens)
and 35mm SLRs (only about 2.2 lenses per SLR body mfg'd, but most of
these are zoom lenses).

Can anyone provide M series lens sales or production figures by types of
lenses or totals? Is there an error in the above calculations about Leica
M lens sales, or is the average number of Leica lenses sold per body only
circa 2 or less?

Thanks in advance for your help in providing info and URLs and leads to
statistics and information! regards bobm


from minolta manual mailing list:
Date: Sat, 02 Mar 2002    
From: "aranda1984" [email protected]>
Subject: Re: 800 Cat

Yes Ze'ev, you are right.

Minolta made 800/8 RF and 1600/11 RF lenses for Leica. And that's the
fact even if Leica owners don't like to hear it.

There was a web site: http://www.minmail.org.mug/mf-bodies.html
That web site listed all the Minolta/Leica projects under 2.13. This
web site no longer is maintained, however, a short time back someone
had another site with the same information.

Stephen I. Molnar
...


from leica topica mailing list:
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 
From: Harry Soletsky [email protected]
Subject: RE: Adapters and Old Lenses


Spend the money to buy a Leica adaptor but make sure that the lower part
of ring is narrower than the top to avoid fouling the infinity lock.
Some early Leica adaptors did not have that area cut out.  The problem
with the Fed is that the quality control is questionable, even with the
cutoff, if the lens does not screwin to the correct place. This is a
problem where "the rubber hits the road" is important. Also if the the
rangefinder cam is not the rotating variety, The lens will not focus
correctly.  I personally believe and I know some will disagree that the
Soviet lenses quality control is so lousy, you should stay clear of
them, unless you're prepared to accept lots of problems.  I would like
to point out that over some 30+ years of collecting non-Leica lenses,
the only ones that did not seem to have uniformly reasonable quality
control were Russian. I have old Nikkors, Canons, Topcons, Kardons, and,
Hugo Meyers among others.  To me the Russians lenses made in the Soviet
days were to be avoided. I am aware they used many fine optical designs
but execution counts.
...




from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Jupiter 9 (85mm) price.

ganderfive wrote:
>They are
>designed primarily for portraits,

Absolutely not.  The Sonnar on which the Jupiter-9 is based was designed
for photo-journalism.  The 4/8.5cm CZJ Triotar was designed for
portraiture, but that is an entirely different lens.

I seem to recall reading that the 2/8.5cm CZJ Sonnar was the first 35mm
lens expressly designed for photo-journalists.  It was designed by Ludwig
Bertele, arguably the outstanding lens designer of the 20th century, who
had earlier designed the Ermanox lens, which was the very first camera
lens designed for photo-journalism.

Marc

[email protected]




from leica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] R and M 6 Prices

Feliciano di Giorgio

"Who knows? With the Leica market being as crazy as it is, M6TTL's may
even go up in price."

You're assuming that the M7 will replace the M6TTL, which aint necessarily
so.

A more intriguing question might be why has Leica been dumping R8 bodies in
Europe by unsealing the boxes on brand new stock and offering them cheap to
dealers as 'ex demo'? Does this suggest where it's getting the extra
manufacturing capacity from to run M7 and M6TTL lines together?


[Ed. note: Mr. Small is a noted expert and author of books on Zeiss and
Leica LTM optics...]

From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: Range finder work on Jupiter9 with adapter on Leica M6 ?

stockendo wrote:
>Hi,
>Has anyone experienced with a Jupiter 9 L39 on a M6 Leica, with
>adapter "L39 to M mount" ?
>Does the range finder fonction, or should I use it in pre-focus,
>which is not so easy with a long lens ?
>
>I heard from russiancamera forum, that Jupiter 9 is an excellent
>lens, not so sharp, but with soft focus perfect for portraits.

>
>The one I want to buy is probably from the 60's since it's serial #
>is 5901090, Could you confirm ?

If the serial number is 5901090, then it dates from 1959.

The lens is an excellent one and really is NOT that soft, even wide-open.
Its original, the 2/8.5cm Sonnar was, after all, the sharpest medium
long-focus lens of the 1930's.

Yes, I use all my Russian lenses on my M3 and M6.  The 6/28 Orion-15 and
the 5.6/20 Russar are not RF-coupled but the others are.

Marc

[email protected]



From Russian Camera Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Range finder work on Jupiter9 with adapter on Leica M6 ?

stockendo wrote:
>Thanks Marc for your indications ;)
>Are the 6/28 Orion-15 and the 5.6/20 Russar, the only Russian lenses
>non RF-coupled, or are there others ?
>Which adapter do you use between Leica and Voightlander on your M3
>and M6 ?
>Do you know since when coating is applied on Jupiter 9 ?


Argh!  There is NO "h" in the name!  It is Voigtlander or Voigtl�nder, but
never with an "h"!  Cosina makes certain lenses and badges them under the
"Voigtl�nder" name.  Their motive for this escapes me -- these seem to be
fine lenses, by every report, but the Voigtl�nder plant closed a

quarter-century back, and I have no idea why Cosina cannot just call them
"Cosina" lenses.  Cosina even goes so far as to print "Germany" on the
boxes, a practice coming dangerously close to the sort of fraud we have
come to expect from certain dealers in SPS camera gear.  I do not own any
of these Cosina lenses and have no intention of purchasing any.  I do own a
swathe of LTM lenses from other makes, however -- Zeiss, Steinheil,
Stewartry, and even those Russian lenses we have been talking about.

All Postwar Soviet Zeiss-derived lenses, including the Jupiter-9, are
coated.  Very late production were multi-coated.

All SPS LTM lenses are RF-coupled save for the Orion-15 and the Russar
MR-2.  All SPS Kiev/Contax RF BM lenses are RF-coupled save for the
may-or-may-not-exist Russar MR-2 -- the Kiev version of the Orion-15 IS
RF-coupled.

I use Leitz LTM-to-M adapters.  Cosina makes some adequate ones and they
are rather inexpensive.  Stephen Gandy also has some other anonymous ones
which are recommended listed on his web site --

http://www.cameraquest.com/

 But the Leitz ones are widely available used and are in occasional
production in Germany.

(I was contacted a few years back by Mark Chaney, who had been approached
by some Russians with an idea of manufacturing these in, I believe,
Lithuania.  The one they sent me didn't fit, probably being in 39mm by 1mm
(proper LTM is 39mm by 26 turns-per-inch Whitworth).

Marc

[email protected]



From Leica Topica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: Popular  Photog's Test 50/3.5 Voigtlander Heliar WOW !


The March 2002 issue of the American photography magazine "Popular
Photography" contains a lens tests of the 50/3.5 Heliar and a "hands on"
report of the Bessa 101 Heliar set.

on the lens "A 100 year old medium format lens design creates a
sensational 35mm camera lens."

"SQF results were excellent -- on a par with the best lenses we have
ever tested."

"A handy, high precision, magnificent lens to treasure.  It's doubtful
that any other commercially made lens will produce superior results."
geez, high praise indeed !!


on the camera "This wild but fascinating super classically styled 35
rangefinder comes in four delicious flavors and has what may be the best
lens we have ever tested." !!!

"We were very impressed with the immaculate finish of all parts of the
Bessa-T Heliar 101 Years camera, lens and trigger winder -- certainly a
future collector's item."

hot damn.

Stephen


From Leica Topica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 
From: Shel Belinkoff [email protected]
Subject: Leica M7


Harrison McClary wrote:

> >Leica M7 .72 black (#10503) or silver (#10504), (taking orders starting next
> >week,) New, USA $2350
>
> What is the M7?  I have heard nothing about it.


I'm surprised that this didn't surface here sooner.

http://www.photim.com/Infos/UneInfo.asp?N=486

What follows is a rough translation from the French:


It's not yet official, but Cd'I has it on good authority: the Leica M6
is to be replaced (joined?) by a new model, whose design will be

faithful to the Leica M tradition, but with an automatic exposure mode.

For several years, one of the great mythical beasts of the photographic
world has been the Leica M7.  The recent appearance of the Konica Hexar
has only strengthened the rumor and all the fans of the brand have been
waiting for the Leica M with automatic mode to see the light of day.

This time, it's certain - the new Leica M is coming!

No official information has come through, but we are sure that the new
Leica M will be introduced in the opening minute of the Orlando PMA -
Sunday 24 February, 10am.  That will be the moment when Leica summons
the press to unveil the new baby.


What everyone calls the Leica M7, but which is more likely to be the
Leica M6-A, will fit into the Leica M range since it will match its
characteristics point for point.  Nothing has changed in the design, nor
in the handling and the only difference in the appearance of an extra

letter on the shutter speed dial, enabling an aperture-priority auto
mode.

Those that wish to can still work in semi-auto mode, as with the Leica
M6, selecting speed and aperture.  But to work faster, it is also
possible to switch to AE mode: you choose an aperture, the camera
chooses only the speed.

This AE mode has forced Leica to make cosmetic changes to its shutter,
which still works in manual mode.  Nice work, but a pity that Leica
couldn't take the opportunity to increase the flash-sync speed, which is
stuck at 1/50s, and which makes it virtually impossible to use fill-in
with the M6-A.


It seems, meanwhile, that Metz, longtime ally of Leica, is currently
working on a high-speed flash that will fill this gap.

Needless to say, we have no pricing information, nor an actual delivery
date.  The launch of a camera at Orlando is one thing, its arrival in
Paris's shop windows is another.

--
Shel Belinkoff
mailto:[email protected]
http://home.earthlink.net/~belinkoff/


from Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 
From: "yupiter3" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Adapter ring for ltm39 to kiev bayonnet

Robert;

  The Leica M bayonet is bigger in diameter than the 39mm LTM.....The
Leica M (Bayonet) series have adapters that can be placed on a lens
that allows it to be used on a Leica M series cameras..... There are
several different LTM/39mm adapters to Leica M series bayonet...The
difference between them is there is a small feature that is
different......This feature changes the viewfinder brightlines for
the lens in use...the Leica M3 has three adapters  one for 50mm, one
for 90mm, and one for 135mm..........

    ***The Kiev Bayonet is small in diameter; I have never seen an
adapter; but I am not a Kiev or Contax expert.......The Kiev bayonet
is very similar to the old Nikon S bayonet; I believe wideangle
lenses can be used between both cameras.....or something like
that...

Regards Philip

  --- In russiancamera@y..., "dnaryam"  wrote:
> Is the kiev bayonnet the same as the leica bayonnet, wich would
> mean that an adapter ring would allow the use of fed, Zorki lens
> on the kiev. Just planning my future buy and wondering if i will
> have to rebuy all the lens if I happen to buy a kiev.
>
> Thanks!
> Robert



From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: Adapter ring for ltm39 to kiev bayonnet

you wrote:
>Is the kiev bayonnet the same as the leica bayonnet, wich would
>mean that an adapter ring would allow the use of fed, Zorki lens
>on the kiev. Just planning my future buy and wondering if i will
>have to rebuy all the lens if I happen to buy a kiev.
>

The entire methodology of interconnection of lens and rangefinder is
completely different on the Leica and Contax/Kiev.  There are adapters to
allow the use of Contax/Kiev lenses on a LTM camera but these generally
cost in three figures.

Marc
[email protected]




Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] The Leica thread and Voitlander - Again with the Rip Van Winkle

> From: "Robert Lilley" [email protected]
> Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [Rollei] The Leica thread and Voitlander - Again with the Rip Van
> Winkle
>
> But, after reading all your postings about
> Leica, it's got me wondering.  If all the glass is made by the same folks,
> et al, just how much more "click for the buck" does Leica give you?

It's not who makes the raw glass that matters.  It's what's done with the
glass.  Good design plus fanatical attention to detail is whats sets Leica
lenses apart from the competition.  But other firms are catching up and
Leica has to stay on their toes if they hope to survive.

> Now, I will tell you that side by side with the new Voigtlander, the Leica
> M6 still has that look and feel of the better camera ----Ah, but look at the
> price difference, $800 vs. $3,000.  Just how much better is the Leica after
> we do the old return on investment?  If I buy a Voigtlander, will I always
> be pining away for the Leica or will I be ahead of the game by $2,200 to
> spend on lenses, Rollie gizmos and that trip to Ireland?    What say you
> all?   Sorry about being so emotional about this.  By the way, so far Ilford
> seems to be the film of choice amongst the responses I have received.


The Voigtlander camera is crude side by side with the Leica, but it does
work well.  The lenses are great!  I took a Voigtlander outfit to California
last summer and shot with it.  The photos were exceptionally sharp.  Are the
Cosina/Voigtlander lenses as good as Leica?  Not on a test bench.  But in
actual shooting I doubt most people could tell any difference.

Bob



From Leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002
From: "Don Dory" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Microcontrast

Think of microcontrast in the same way that Erwin discusses 40hz
resolution.
So microcontrast is the ability of the system to accurately separate tones
in very fine detail.  The higher the microcontrast the greater the ability
to separate out small differences.

Glad you asked.

Don Dory
[email protected]



From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: Massive confusion challenges brain

 Javier Perez wrote:
>Is Helios the manufacturer and 40 the model?
>or is Helios-40 the model and if so then who is
>the actual manufacturer? The people's optical works?
>
>Ditto for
>Jupiter 12 9 6
>and eventually Tair, Mir etc.


Soviet and Post-Soviet factories can be deciphered in two ways:  first, if
you have the Passport, it generally says there who made the lens or, two,
you can tell from the logo on the lens ring.  Nathan Dayton has a really
good collation of these on his "commiecameras" site.

The Helios-40 and -44 primarily, if not totally, came from KMZ or
Lytkarino.  The Jupiters in LTM came from KMZ, Zagorsk, or Kazan, while
those in Contax RF BM came from Arsenal, Zagorsk or Kazan.  M42 Jupiters
generally come, to my knowledge, from Lytkarino.  MTO's are from KMZ
(early) or Lytkarino, though the relatively new 5.6/300 (?) is from a plant
with a logo I've not seen elsewhere.

Learn the logos, learn the factories!  And research continues.

Marc
[email protected]


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Massive confusion challenges brain

[email protected] writes:

>> Is Helios the manufacturer and 40 the model?
 or is Helios-40 the model and if so then who is
 the actual manufacturer? The people's optical works?


Manufacturer is the plant that nade the lens. This can be KMZ, Lytkarino,
Kazan etc. This is determined by the logo on the lens.
Some lenses were made by several manufacturers (I-50 was made by KMZ, Kazan,
Lytkarino, J-12 - by KMZ, Lytkarino, Arsenal etc.), some lenses were made by
one manufacturer only (Russar was only made by KMZ )

Helios-40 is the model name.

So you can say:
KMZ Helios-40
KMZ Industar-50
Kazan Industar-50
nother issue - some lenses were made in several mounts. The mounts are
designated as follows (this is not a rule, just a convention that is used by
some, M. Small suggested some of the designations I use).
LTM - 39 mm Leica Thread mount
CRF - Contax/Kiev RF
ZTM - 39 mm Zenit Thread mount
M42 - as always

So, this is how I classify my lesnes:

KMZ Helios-40 ZTM #xxxxxx
Arsenal Jupiter-12 CRF #xxxxxx
Lytkarino Jupiter-12 LTM (Black) #xxxxxx
Kazan Jupiter-11 CRF #xxxx

This is only a suggestion, of course.



From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2001 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: Massive confusion challenges brain

 Javier Perez wrote:
>I'm not sure the names can reflect a formula
>The Jupiter 9 is a Sonnar
>but the Jupiter 12 is a Biogon
>I'm not sure if the 12 is the only exception
>Whatever the case it doesn't look like they used names for formulas
>at least not strictly. Not sure what the story is though.

Javier

The "Jupiter" name is attached to the lenses whose formulae were taken
from Zeiss Jena designs --

1.5/50 Jupiter-3        =       1.5/5cm CZJ Sonnar
2.8/180 Jupiter-6       =       2.8/18cm CZJ "Olympia" Sonnar
2/50 Jupiter-8          =       2/5cm CZJ Sonnar
2/85 Jupiter-9          =       2/8.5cm CZJ Sonnar
4/135 Jupiter-11        =       4/13.5cm CZJ Sonnar
2.8/35 Jupiter-12       =       2.8/3.5cm CZJ Biogon

Marc
[email protected]



from leica topica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 
From: "Jeffery Smith" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [RF List] konica lenses for M mount


Konica Hexanon M
28/2.8
35/2
50/2
50/1.2
90/2.8

That's it!

Jeffery Smith


From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2002 
From: Harrison McClary [email protected]
Subject: Leica/Hexar compatibility: A test


I finally got curious as to weather there was any truth to the rumor
that the Hexar lenses do not work on the M6 and vice versa.  So I did
a little test to see if this was true.

I made a page showing a test of using the Leica M lenses on a Konica
Hexar Body, and using the Hexar 50 on a Leica M6 body.  All photos
were made with the lenses at the widest aperture and at the lenses
closest focusing distance.

I set the cameras on a tripod and focused on a box a new lens came
in.  All photos are equally sharp.  The only lens that is soft is my
Noctilux, and it is equally soft on both cameras.  I was originally
just going to test this lens, due to problems with getting sharp
photos at maximum aperture. Obviously I need to send it into DAG for
adjustment.

Anyway, for me at least, after running this test I have no qualms
about using the M lens on my Hexar, or my Hexar 50 on my M6.

The page can be viewed at:

http://homepage.mac.com/whmcclary/PhotoAlbum2.html

The photos were scanned using a Nikon 4000ED scanner.  Photos shot on
Kodak Portra 160NC.

Obviously the images were down-sampled for web use.
--
Harrison McClary
http://www.mcclary.net


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Are late Zorkis and Feds really Leica copies?


Hi group,

I think the late Zorki rangefinders i.e. Zorki3,4,4k,5,6 and Fed
2,3,4,5 and Mir and Zaya are improved Leicas made before M 3. These
Ex-soviet cameras all have a detachable back for quicker and surer
film loading and a combined range-view finders for convenient
viewing.So I don't think it is very accurate to call them Leica
copies.

Also the late Kiev rangefinders should be accurately called improved
Contax II and IIIs. A kiev 4 or 4a still have the very long base
rangefiners but incoporated a flat Contax III A type base plate.

The only problem for these cameras is that they don't have a German
QC and name. Do you agree? I don't want to flame anyone ,please
understand.


Zhang


 Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001
From: Ron Schwarz [email protected]
Subject: Re: Are late Zorkis and Feds really Leica copies?
....


IMO they're Leica "descendants". The same applies to the Mockba 5, which
evolved from the Ikonta/Super Ikonta heritage of the earlier Mockba models,
which were true clones (in many cases made from the actual Zeiss parts, as
were the early Kievs).

The Russians made some notable improvements as you pointed out.  They
seemed to be mostly concerned with usability rather than cosmetics,
although towards the end of their "Golden Age", they seemed to be bitten by
the same bug that compelled the Germans to go for big bulky cameras with
ungodly amounts of shiny chrome and big buttons.  The age of the Giant Top
Cover left its mark on them, sadly.

BTW one of the first cameras I used when I was a kid was a Fed 1 that my
father picked up Way Back When, and converted to a removale back (like the
newer models, Nikons, etc.). When you removed the bottom, the back came off
with it, making it very easy to load. I had no idea of how difficult
bottom-loaders were until years later.  (He also covered it in brown
leather.)  I'm not sure when he did the conversion but I'm pretty certain
he did it when he worked at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. I guess one of the
percs of working in the machine shop was being able to do stuff like that
in his spare time.  He made a lens barrel from brass scrap for a Reflex
Korelle he picked up. He had a 90mm lens, so he cut the helicil threads in
some brass pieces, built a preset aperture control, the focus and stopdown
ring, etc.  I still have that piece. Unfortunatly I sold the Fed when I was
a teenager. (at his urging, strangely)



from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Most Usable Russian 35mm ?

--- In russiancamera@y..., heirphoto@a... wrote:
> I was wondering what the group feels is the most usable of the 35mm
> Russian cameras?
> I have always liked the FED 3 because of the bright viewfinder and
> lever winding but the FED 2 has a wider based rangefinder and except
> for the knob wind simply handles well.
> I don't know much about the Zorki cameras except I kind of remember
> most only load from the baseplate and did not have a removable
> backplate.
> Your thoughts?
> Thanks,
> Tony Miller


My favorite Russian rangefinders are
1, Kiev 4AM for long accurate rangefinder base and easy loading,
2, Zorki 6 for long rangefinder base and easy loading and  winding
and strap lugs as well as a flat base palte.
3, Zorki 4K with engraved numbers and Fed 3 B for rapid film winding,
4, Fed 2 for long rangefinder base and flat base plate and strap lugs.

If there was a camera that could combine all the strong points of all
above mentioned cameras and a multi-frame rangefinder of a Kiev 5, it
would be an ideal camera.

Zhang



from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fed 5 rangefineder vertical alignment adjustment

--- In russiancamera@y..., Ron Schwarz rs@c... wrote:
> Does anyone know if there is any kind of access point for adjusting the
> vertical alignment for the Fed 5's rangefineder?
>
> If not, and I had to remove the top plate, dos the exposure scale parts
> need to be removed from the rewind area?  If so, what's involved in getting
> those parts off?  I can't see any screws.
>
> Thanks in advance to anyone who's got the lowdown on this.


Hi Ron,

I think first you should try this.

The name plate of a Fed 5 is a thin metal plate that can be removed
by pushing it toward left with camera facing you. Then you can see a
small round glass window that can be rotated with a tweezer.I have
adjusted vertical alignment of Zorki 1 and Fed 2 by rotating this
small round window. I think the same principle also applys to Fed 5.
Although I must admit I have never tried this on a Fed 5.


Zhang


Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kiev-4 Instead

[email protected] writes:

>>I am thinking of trying the one without the meter, the 4A I think. What
range of lenses were produced for these. I usually only see a 35mm, 50mm, 85mm
and  a 135mm. I know the FED/Zorki crowd seem to have more choices on the wide angle end. 

The Kiev and Zorki line of lenses is practically the same, the only
difference is the Russar 20 mm lens that exists only in LTM mount.
The 28 mm Orion-15 was made in both mounts, though the Kiev mount is very
uncommon. The rest of the lenses you already mentioned.

Yuri



From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 
From: Kevin Kalsbeek [email protected]
Subject: Re: Most Usable Russian 35mm ?

Hi Tony,

You are most welcome. The Zorki-4 is a nice macine, but the wind knob is
too close to the raised housing, making it more difficult to wind than
say, the later FED-2 with the large, raised knob, and some of the
earlier Zorkis. The knob position on the 4- well- they blew it. I do,
like the 4 better than the 4K though. The 1/1000 shutter speed is
popular, with many, but if you fall back into the old fashioned way of
shooting, and I do use 400 film, you will never miss it, and, since I am
an old fart/dinosaur, 1/ 1000 is of no importance.

It sounds to me like you are on that slippery downhill slide, and hope
you have a lot of room for camera storage! B^)

Out of my about 90 Russki cameras, over half are RFs, and I am running
out of room, and I suspect Nathan has me beat by a mile! B^)
Whatever you buy, just relax, slow down, and learn to use them and you
will be most pleased by the results, I think.

Incidentally, the bottom loaders are not really that hard to load, once
you learn the trick, which is easy. The cameras with collapsible lenses
are very small and will easily slip into a pocket. The 50mm should cover
at least 75% of your needs, and will provide amazing results, as the
glass is very good. I seldom shoot mine, preferring the removable back
models, but do enjoy using them, so don't rule them out completely.

Regards,
Kevin

[email protected] wrote:

> Kevin and all,
> Thanks for the opinions on the 35mm question as well as the
> Kiev/Salyut problem. I was surprised most chose the Zorki cameras and
> from a quick search of EBay many do seem to have removable backs. I
> have no patience for bottom loaders.
> The Zorki 4C seems a good choice with the 1/1000 shutter speed and
> bright viewfinder but that bulky top plate is huge compared to the
> FED-2.
>
> As for the 6x6 format I will stick to my Iskra for now.
>
> Thanks everyone,
> Tony



From Russian Camera Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 
From: "Keith Berry" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Kiev-4 Instead

----- Original Message -----
From: [email protected]

> After hearing some responses to which Russian rangefinder I am curious about
> the Kiev cameras. These are models I never owned and am a little unfamiliar
> with them....

There's info on the Kievs on my website -
www.keithberry.telinco.co.uk/kiev-4.htm 
and there's an on-line manual there too.

Regards,

Keith Berry
Birmingham, England


from minolta mailing list:
Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2002 
From: "knarf_relleum" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Minolta / Leica (R) lens similarities,

Unfortunately I can't add anything to the very interesting discussion
about lens similarities, but I thought in this context people might
find it interesting to look at the following web site:

http://www.leicagallery.com/leicaflexreviews.htm

It gives some information regarding the R3/XE and R4/XD similarities
from the Leica enthusiast's point of view.

I found it curious that the site implies that the R3's shutter is
different from the XE's.  I had always believed this to be one of the
notable similarities, and am still not convinced that it is not so.

The specifications of the R3's shutter as given on this site
(http://www.wildlightphoto.com/leica/r3.html) appear to be identical
to the XE's, ie:

- Electronically-timed vertical-travel metal shutter.
- Speeds from 4 seconds to 1/1000s plus B.
- Continuously-variable in automatic modes
- Variable in 1-stop increments in manual mode.
- Electronic flash sync at 1/90 sec or slower.

I wonder where the difference is.  Possibly in the "Leica
specifications" and "tolerances".  I guess it is only natural that
Leitz enthusiasts are eager to emphasise the differences while
Minolta fans dwell on the similarities, given the price difference
between the two systems.

Cheers

Frank



from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2001
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: Konica RF and Leica M Compatibilty --Official word

Thanks Bob,

coming from Froehlich who got it from Konica management, this puts the
issue to bed for me.  from time to time the this was brought up by various
people, but usually with only one source, and often an anonymous source at
that.  For those who bought the Hexar RF, or those who were considering
buying it, M lens compatibility is too important an issue to reasonably
accept such bad news without thoroughly investigating it and making sure
that it is, indeed, accurate information.

I hope you can encourage Froehlich to explain to Konica, and Konica USA,
why this needs to be made official public info, while at the same time
having all Konica repair depts offering adjustments to the bodies and
lenses, for those customers who want it.  Over about a dozen phone calls
and emails to Konica USA, no one that I had contact would admit they had a
clue that the problem existed, or how to fix it.

Stephen

Bob Shell wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> I thought it was time to try and clear this up.
>
> I contacted my old friend Henry Froehlich.  For those who don't know the
> history, Henry was the first to import Japanese cameras into the USA
> after WW II, and the cameras he imported were Konica.  Later, with some
> others, Henry founded Berkey Marketing Corp., which was the largest US
> importer of photo goods in the 70s, and USA Konica distributor.  After
> retiring from Berkey, Henry and two friends founded Mamiya America.   Henry
> is now semi-retired but maintains his connections to Japan.  He arranged  the
> deal for Mamiya to take over distribution of Sekonic, which is a  subsidiary
> of Konica.
>
> Anyway, Henry asked his friends at Konica  for the official word
> on this compatibility issue.  He just phoned me with the answer.  They  say
> the Hexar RF is *not* intended for using Leica lenses.  Further, they  say
> that the lens mount on the Hexar RF must be shimmed to make it match  Leica
> specifications, and say that most really good repair shops ought to be  able
> to do this.  Lenses can have their infinity position reset for use on  Leica
> or on shimmed Hexar bodies.  However, in typical Japanese fashion they
> stated, "We would really prefer that you use our lenses on our camera."
>
> This is from the horse's mouth, folks.
>
> Bob



from leica topica mailing list:
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 
From: Kevin Baker [email protected]
Subject: Leica Factory Tour

Just returned from the factory in Solms.  Long review is here:

http://www.thebakers.org/leica




from leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002 
From: Joseph Yao [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] M Topplate M2-3-4-5 vs. M6-M7

Bill,

M6s sold in the Japanese market have engraved top covers:

http://www.cameraquest.com/LM6JM.htm

This is a regular production model.


The factory charges DM30 (US$13.53) extra for this service.

Joseph

 Bill Satterfield at [email protected] wrote:

>
> I had my  chrome M4 out with my chrome M6 classic. The M4 topplate is a
> thing of beauty while the M6 topplate looks barren. Why can't Leica  put
> out a model of the 6  and the 7 with an engraved topplate and charge an
> extra $50. I would be glad to pay the extra. I am sure it would increase
> sales. I have heard they sold the rights to the engraved topplate and
> had to buy it back for the LHSA model.


from leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2002
From: John Collier [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] M7 update.

Thank you for pointing out that profit margins on cameras are very slim.
My dealer makes about 10% on a new M body. Needless to say, it is the
accessories that keep him alive. You cannot just sell accessories though,
you have to have something to put them on.

John Collier



from rf mailing list:
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2002 
From: marcus [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Where to buy Jupiter 85mm?


 Try Fedka @  He's more
expensive than ebay, but great to deal with. Think of
it as a premium for a no hassle, quick shipping,
guaranteed transaction. Others on this list have
recommended him as well. People have also successfully
dealt with "Lemiu" on E***, but sometimes have to go
back and forth with him a few times in order to get a
truly working item. He ships out of California, so
it's not so bad as Ukraine or wherever. I liked
dealing with Fedka to avoid all that hassle.

 Hope this is some help. -Marcus



From Rangefinder Mailing List:
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002
From: "Terrance  Young" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Where to buy Jupiter 85mm?


 Dave,

I got mine on Ebay no problems but I understand your reservations. Anyway,
there are a few things to note about the Jupiter 85 even if you get one in
good condition.

The aperture is the non-click type so knowing your approximate f-stop when
looking through the finder and adjusting can be problematic.  Also the
aperture ring is marked in the opposite order from Leica and Voigt lenses-
right to left from largest aperture to smallest aperture (Pentax and Nikon
style).  On my metered Bessa T I have to remember to turn ring in opposite
direction of exposure indicators.


The focussing ring on mine is a tad tight but no biggie really.  Also, the
ring stops rotating about 4mm before the infinity mark but when I look
through the finder to focus it doesn't seem to have a problem focussing on
distant objects.

Sturdiness wise the lens feels like a rock.  It's solid, just lacking in
fine craftsmanship if anything.  For instance the cap that came with mine
fits loose.  Could be the wrong cap.  It fits with a 49mm Kenko skylight
though.  Anyway, I hope that helps.

Terrance
....




from minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 
From: "mikkonis2" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Minolta / Leica (R) lens similarities,

Hi to the group for long time! Frank kindly told me about this thread,
so I had to participate ;-)

About the lenses: All lenses that I have heard mentioned as
co-operational models are listed in this thread, but the 45/2 and 50/2
sound very strange to me - I have never earlier heard they were
co-operational products.

The CL (not CLE) had one Leica lens, the 90mm, other M-Rokkors were
propably pure Rokkors: http://cameraquest.com/leicacl.htm has some info
about them:

"the 90/4 Rokkor is actually a German produced 90/4 Elmar with the
Rokkor name on it"


The CLE is pure Minolta, its shutter is based on the XG and TTL
metering comes from the X-700. The CL is the common rangefinder model,
sold under names Leiz CL, Minolta CL and Leitz/Minolta CL.

As it was pointed out, the R3/XE and R4/XD are more or less
co-operational models. The website mentioned says the shutter of the
XE and R3 were different, but as far as I know they have identical
shutters - both having the Leitz/Copal shutter, which can be verified
from the litterature. The writer propably thinks the R4/XD, which seem
to have different shutters - if I remember right, the XD has Seiko
shutter, don't know about R4. When looked from the back the XD shutter
curtains look exactly like the shutter of the Pentax ME-Super, and it
surely is not the same shutter the XE uses.

The electronics inside XE and R3 are more or less identical, and I can
verify this - my XE-7 has the gliding resistor below the rewind crank
replaced by the R3 spare part (they are still available), and it is
one of the central parts. The meters are different, though, Leica
having a spot meter, and also the mirror/aperture-mechanisms must be
different to facilitate different aperture contact systems and
different register distances. At least some Leica R3 models are also
capable of using a motor drive, unlike the XE, but this may be more
due to Minolta having protected their coming XM Motor than anything
else.


This is one of the classic mysteries of Minolta, the "Leica
connection", giving a shine of that glorious name to our camera brand.
Of course it is nice to know, but I would not put too much weight on
this. Most of the "facts" we have are actually rumours, and these
things are not the easiest to verify among the business secrets. Every
word I write here or at my website is more or less questionable -
someone wrote something and when it was repeated enough it became a
common knowledge. I have never seen the original press releases from
Leitz and Minolta concerning their co-operation and common products,
and everything not read from them is greatly uncertain. All that I'm
sure about is that the two companies had co-operation, and at least
the XE/R3 and XD/R4 and Leitz/Minolta CL are based on this
co-operation.

Minolta has made wonderful products at its own, the Leitz name is not
needed to make them any better - but it seems Minolta makes Leica name
look less glorious, at least in the eyes of the Leica purists... no
one having used the XE or XD needs to question this. They are fine
cameras, compareable to any other SLR in quality and smoothness of the
operation. Most MC and MD Rokkors from the late 70's and 80's (before
the "plain" MD era) are also up to any other lens series, both
mechanically and optically.

I once started to count what it would cost to build up my Minolta
system buying used Leica, and stopped after two lenses, 24/2.8 and
35-70/3.5. I cannot afford to them, so why bother?


Cheers

Mikko


--- In Minolta@y..., "samizdat43"  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I was wondering if anyone would like to comment on some
> unsubstantiated claims I've seen about Leica-branded lenses
> and Minolta-branded lenses being similar or identical.
>
> The claims i've seen are for:
>
> 1.   Minolta 35-70 f3.5 = leica vario elmar
> 2.   minolta 45 f2
> 3.   minolta 70-210 f4 = leica vario elmar
>
> Minolta did of course make a 28 f2.8, a 40 f2, and a 90 for the
> CL & CLE...I'm not counting these although any comments
> on the relative quality w.r.t. Leica would be welcome too.
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Jeff


from minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 
From: "samizdat43" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Minolta / Leica (R) lens similarities,

Hi All,

Over the weekend i bought 'identifying leica lenses'
by g. sartorius. his book confirms the list below,
with the exception of the 50/2.....

there weer two summicron 50/2's in the seventies: a 6/5
with 0.5m minimum focus, superseded by a 6/4, same focus.


i _think_ there were 3 minolta 50/2's in that era: the MC-PF
with 0.5m and two focusing ring grip rows and 55mm filter,
an MD with 55mm filter and two grip rows, and an MD with
49mm filter, 4 grip rows, and 0.45m focus.


(can anyone confirm this minolta info?)

if this is right, the best twin candidates are the MC-PF
and the first summicron. the first summicron and the two-row
MD may be twins, also, but i dont know the group/element
data. the 49mm md seems right out, since no summicron has
0.45m distance and this is a firm design property.

thoughts?


jeff


--- In Minolta@y..., Ulrich Olaf olaf.ulrich@s... wrote:
> Doug "benelug1" wrote:
> > > I am aware of the following Minolta
> > > lenses that Leitz used in their own
> > > 'R' lens line-up (Minolta glass in
> > > Leitz barrels, list possibly not
> > > complete):
> > >
> > >   MC Fisheye Rokkor 16 mm f/2.8
> > >   MC W.Rokkor 24 mm f/2.8
> > >   MC Rokkor 50 mm f/2
> > >   MC Zoom Rokkor 80-200 mm f/4.5
> > >   MD Zoom Rokkor 35-70 mm f/3.5
> > >   MD Zoom Rokkor 75-200 mm f/4.5
> > >   MD Zoom 70-210 mm f/4
> >
> > Olaf: where did you get that list?
> > 16 and 24: that is perfectly true and
> > verified. Still is the case in today's
> > current R line-up.
> >
> > The zooms: that list is probably true.
> > None of these lenses still exist today
> > in the R line-up.
>
> That's right, all those Leitz-Minolta zooms are discontinued
> today.  They keep showing up in the used market.  Particularly
> the Vario-Elmar 75-200 mm f/4.5 I have seen quite a few times
> lately.  Today's Vario-Elmar lenses are made in co-operation
> with different companies, like Sigma and Kyocera.
>
> Doug further wrote:
> > You should also add the 500 mm f/8
> > mirror lens.
>
> Indeed?  Thank you for this information.
>
>
> Doug further wrote:
> > 50 mm f/2: that would be extremely
> > surprising, as the 50 mm Summicron
> > design is a very old Leitz/Leica
> > tradition. Could you please check
> > that up?
>
> Umm, it is possible that in this case it is just the other way
> around: Minolta picked up the Leitz design to make their own
> slow standard lens.  But as far as I know they did not use Leitz
> glass; I think they made their own glass after Leitz blueprints
> ... if the whole story is true in the first place.  I am afraid
> I am just promoting a rumour here.  Some person wrote about a
> comparison of several Minolta MC and MD standard lenses and
> found the MC Rokkor 50 mm f/2 the sharpest.  He said, no wonder
> since it's made after the Leitz Summicron design ... go figure.
>
>
> Regards,
> Olaf
> --
> Olaf Ulrich, Erlangen (Germany)



From Minolta mailing list:
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 
From: "Mehrdad Sadat" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Re: Minolta / Leica (R) lens similarities,

when leica was in trouble way back then, they contracted with Minolta for
a jump start. the results (as we all know) sharing the EX.-5/7 body with
the leica (kind of the same way a ford a Lincoln share a body) and minolta
designed some lenses for leica a 35-70 3.5, a 70-210 4.5, and a 24 2.8 R.
i think minolta even manufactured these lenses also for a while. overall
the three lenses are mediocre according to leica standards, the 35-70 3.5
was brought in house to solms redesigned (cosmetics only) and later
discontinued in favor of a super 35-70 f4.0 the 70-210 was also
discontinued in favor of a 80-200 f4 (also superb). the 24 still lives but
made in germany now. minolta also with the permission of leica built a
mini rangefinder the minolta CLE which is a leica CL improved with
electronics, ttl flash and three lenses (28,40 and 90 i think).i remember
when i bout my XE-7, i was so happy the leica R3 was the same!! that's
about all of the relationship,

Thanks, Mehrdad




Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 
From: Richard Knoppow [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Nikon, Ikon, and Nippon Kogaku

....

The first Nikons rangfinder cameras were styled something like the Contax,
had a finger wheel for focusing,  and used a Contax type bayonet lens
mount. Other than that there was not much resemblance. Nikon certainly did
not try to duplicate the Contax shutter.

  Canon used the Leica as a style model and also used the Leica type screw
mount for lenses.

  While Leica screw mount lenses would thread into a Canon, and Contax
lenses would fit Nikons, the rangefinder cams were different so the lenses
were not really interchangible.

  The original Nikon 50mm, f/1.4 lens was an outstanding example of the
Zeiss Sonnar type. I doubt if it was a direct copy of the Zeiss Sonnar for
the Contax, although the Japanese probably had Zeiss prescriptions,
obtained during the war, to work from. Many of these lenses were adapted
for use on Leica cameras.

----
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
[email protected]



From: "David Kieltyka" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Opinions on Voigtlander/Cosina lenses?
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002


[email protected] wrote:

> According to Erwin Puts, the Voigtlander/Cosina lenses
> suffer from decentering and flare. Anyone has the same
> experience? I'm interested in the 50mm and both 35mm
> lenses.

Almost every lens ever made suffers from decentering and flare. Some more
than others. The Cosina Voigtl�nders likely fare as well as higher end
Nikkor and Canon lenses in this respect, maybe even better. Leica and Zeiss
lenses rate at the top because their quality control standards are higher.
That said, later Voigt lenses like the 28mm f/1.9 are much improved in terms
of centering. Cosina QA has tightened up with the success of the Voigt line.
I think Erwin attempts to damn with faint praise but can't really bring it
off because the lenses are in fact very good. I use the 15mm Heliar and 35mm
Ultron interchangeably with my Leica & Zeiss rangefinder lenses. The Voigts
hold their own.

-Dave-




From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Opinions on Voigtlander/Cosina lenses?
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2002 

 [email protected] wrote:

>According to Erwin Putts, the Voigtlander/Cosina lenses suffer from
>decentering and flare.  Anyone has the same experience?  I'm
>interested in the 50mm and both 35mm lenses.
>
>Andrew

I can't comment on those two lenses, but I have just run a resolution test
comparing my Voigtlander 90/3.5 APO-Lanthar to my Leica 90/2.0 APO
Summicron-M.

According to my results, Erwin was optimistic about this lens' performance
wide open.  It shows somewhat lower resolution than the Summicron in the
center at f/4, and noticeably lower resolution that the Leica lens in the
corners.  Based on my experience with the current 90/2.8  Elmarit-M, the VC
lens probably isn't as good as that lens at f/4, either.  However, this
test was done on a tripod, locked down tight and focussed very carefully
(on a .85 M6 with the add-on 1.25 magnifier).  The resolution differences
that I saw would be completely negated by handholding or minor focussing
errors.

At f/8 the two lenses were utterly indistinguishable.

Given that the VC lens is 1/5 the price of the big gun Summicron, that's
pretty respectable performance.  However, there's the little matter of the
missing two f-stops on the VC, which is where the Summicron really shines.

In general shooting, the Summicron appears to be a bit less flare-prone,
and has somewhat cleaner tonality as a result.

I'd be willing to bet that these sorts of comparative findings would be
typical of the VC lineup as a whole.  The VC lenses are not as good as the
current Leica offerings.  At their price they can't be.  BUT - I would
expect them to stack up favorably to Leica lenses of one or two generations
back, in every regard except construction quality.


For an amateur to whom cost is an issue and bullet-proof mechanicals are
perhaps less of a concern, I think the VC lenses are the best thing that
could have happened to bring interchangeable lens rangefinders to the
masses.

Paul



From: [email protected] (McEowen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 06 Feb 2002 
Subject: Re: LEICA vs. THE FABULOUS EOS-1V !!!


>I would imagine that in 10 years the fabulous EOS-1V will still outperform
>the
>dated Leica.  There have already been 3 more iterations of the Leica.  The
>fabulous EOS-1V, however, has yet to be improved upon.

The differences between a 1950s Leica  M3 and a 2002 model Leica M6 are
essentially:

* more convenient loading and rewinding (circa 1960 something)
* standard PC socket and hot shoe (few folks use flash with Leica M cameras so
this is a marginal improvement)
* a simple built-in light meter
* TTL flash metering (which even fewer use)
* arguably inferior construction on the modern camera

In essence the camera has remained largely unchanged for nearly 50 years.

Depending on which side of the fence you stand on that is either a remarkable
testament of a great design or the ultimate indication of how out of date Leica
is. Personally, I stand on the former side. The M3 is a marvel.



From: "Q.G. de Bakker" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica..
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2002 


il padovano wrote:

> the lense thake good pictures, not the body

Nope. It's the combination that takes "good" pictures. A high class lens on
a poor body (a crappy viewfinder (reflex or range), bad dimensional
stability (mechanical and temperature stress), lens mount to film distance
not within acceptable tolerance, lens mount and film plane not parallel,
etc., etc.) makes bad pictures all the same.

Mind you, i'm not saying that only Leitz can produce good bodies. Not at
all.



From: "Mxsmanic" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica..
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002


"Casper" [email protected] wrote 

> I just want to ask about this camera.. Why
> all the fame?

The camera and lenses are both of very high quality, and have been that
way for some 75 years, which has given the brand quite a long time to
build up a well-deserved reputation for quality.  Inevitably, along with
the reality, some myth has sprung up, too, and it's separating the myth
from reality that presents a problem for anyone investigating Leica in a
serious and objective way, especially since so many people have strong
opinions for or against Leica and prefer to maintain the mythology to
support their opinions.

> Is it because it's the first one that's come out,
> or does it actually take better pictures than
> your new F100, for example.


As long as you use the best Nikon lenses, you'll find it pretty much
impossible to distinguish between images from a Leica and images from
the F100.  The quality is in the glass, so as long as you use the best
glass, you'll get good pictures.

The major distinction between Leica and Nikon (and other brands) is that
Leica has no "consumer" line of lenses; all Leica lenses are
professional lenses that are the best they can build.  Nikon, in
contrast, builds inexpensive consumer lenses and prosumer lenses _in
addition to_ top-quality professional lenses.  This means that whenever
you compare to Leica, you're always comparing to the best Leica lenses
available (because Leica doesn't build any other kind).  If the brand
you're comparing with has a cheaper consumer line, and you use a lens
from that line for the comparison, Leica will seem almost mystically
beautiful by comparison.  However, if you compare Leica to the very best
lenses from other manufacturers (the only really valid comparison), the
differences are far less significant, where they exist at all.


Technically, Leica builds lenses to standards as high or higher than
anyone else around, but for most normal photography, you'd be
_extremely_ hard pressed to see this when comparing to other top lenses
from other manufacturers.

It is safe to say that, if you do see a difference, it will always favor
Leica.  But usually you won't see a difference, as long as you are
comparing apples to apples (no G-series lenses, please!).

> Is it (or are they) really worth this much?

Partially.  However, Leica has small production runs and a lot of hand
labor in their manufacturing process, and they are very anal-retentive
about doing everything just right.  This raises the prices of their
cameras and lenses beyond what they might cost if they could be built,
say, in runs of 200,000 at a time, with the economies of mass production
they'd probably cost about the same as high-end Nikons (in fact, the
difference is already quite small in many cases).

> I mean, a camera is bought to take pictures with,
> just as a car is bought to be driven..

True.  That's why Leica has survived: their M-series camera is almost
ludicrously simple, but then again, so is photography, and neither the M
nor photography has changed much in the past 75 years, so Leica cameras
still take nice pictures.  The Leica glass also exerts an attraction,
though, as it is second to none.  And to a much greater extent than the
camera bodies, Leica continuously improves their lenses in subtle but
significant ways: many older Leica lenses are only about as good as an
average high-end lens from any other manufacturer today, but _today's_
Leica lenses still lead the way compared to other brands.


> But why would you want thirty five cameras that
> you'll most likely never use, and pay so much money
> for them?

You wouldn't, unless you're a collector or a wannabe.  Unfortunately,
with 75 years of history behind it, Leica has built up quite a following
of collectors and wannabes, in addition to serious photographers.



Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica..


"Robert Monaghan" [email protected] wrote 

> The proponents of Leica gear have the burden
> of demonstrating that the results justify the
> significantly higher costs for both new and
> used Leica lenses etc.


Proponents of Leica gear have no burden to demonstrate anything at all.
If you don't want a Leica, don't buy one.

> The convincing evidence would be a blind lens
> test in which observers can reliably and repeatedly
> tell the Leica shots from non-Leica SLR shots.

No, that wouldn't be convincing at all.

You see, all good cameras take pictures that are pretty much
interchangeable.  The only reason to use one camera over another is
personal preference.  Personal preference doesn't show in the final
results, it just makes photographers happy or unhappy.  So blind tests
of the resulting photographs are useless.


From: "Tony Polson (the one and only)" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm,uk.rec.photo.misc
Subject: NEW LEICA M7.  The verdict.
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2002


Shout it from the rooftops:

The Leica M7 is *real*.

The Leica M7 is *here*.

The Leica M7 is *beautiful*.

The Leica M7 offers *real value for money*.

ACCEPT NO IMITATIONS!!!!



OK, now for some facts.

I handled the M7 today at the UK exhibition "Focus on imaging".  I had
about 10 minutes with the camera and loved it enough to order one.
It's basically an M6 TTL with added aperture priority AE and an
electronically controlled shutter offering some interesting
possibilities for flash synch at higher shutter speeds than the usual
1/50 sec.

Body dimensions are identical to the M6 TTL.  The shutter is still a
horizontal travel cloth focal plane shutter but is now electronically
controlled.  Shutter speeds top out at 1/1000 as with the M6 TTL, but
the only non-battery dependent speeds available on the M7 are 1/60 and
1/125 sec.

The body has a new shutter release locking collar which also turns
on/off power to the light meter and AE system.  The shutter speed dial
has an additional click setting "AUTO" but is otherwise similar to the
M6.

DX film speed coding is added but there is full manual over-ride.

Fastest flash X-synch speed remains at 1/50 sec., but a special Metz
SCA 34xx adaptor allows flash synch at speeds between 1/250 and 1/1000
sec including first and second curtain synch.

Now hear this:  In the UK, the M6 TTL lists at GBP 1698.00 including
17.5% sales tax (VAT, about 15% of the selling price).

**The M7 is only GBP 100.00 more.**

I think this represents excellent value for money.  The M6 TTL will
continue in the Leica range for the forseeable future because it
offers a full range of mechanically controlled shutter speeds.


The M7 will be available from March in the usual chrome and black
finishes and with 0.72X, 0.85X and 0.58X magnification viewfinders.
The M7 black 0.72X will come first, followed by the M7 0.72X chrome.
The other viewfinder magnifications will come later.  I was told to
expect my M7 black 0.58X in May 2002.

My thanks to Peter Antoniou of Leica UK for the opportunity to handle
this camera and discuss its specifications in detail.

Leica have a winner on their hands in the M&, no doubt about it.
--
Regards, Jan



From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re:Zeiss vs. Russian Lenses

Hello,

Perhaps I am in a sort of unique position to comment on both
Zeiss and russian lenses.  You see, I inherited an absolutely
pristine Zeiss Contax system from my father-in-law and am
currently using Fed2 and Fed5 equipment.

My Contaxes (a Contax II and a Contax III, both 1938 manufacture)
were my pride and joys until the shutter tapes died.  I had the
following lenses:

Sonnar, collapsible, 5cm f2 (uncoated)
Sonnar, rigid, 5cm f2 (uncoated)
Sonnar, 5cm f1.5 (1939, COATED!!!!)
Sonnar, 8.5cm f2 (1936, black, uncoated)
Sonnar, 13.5cm f4 (uncoated)

I also had a plate back and Contameter,neither of which were ever used.

I currently have four Fed2's two Zorki6's and two Fed5's.  For lenses
I have the usual gaggle of Industar 61L/D, 61, 50 and 26 lenses and
a few each Jupiter-8's, 9's 11's and 12's.

Firstly, the quality of manufacture and finish on the (like-new) prewar
Zeiss lenses is absolutely beyond compare.  Leica, eat your heart out!

Appearance.

I must say that all of the russian lenses, even though their chrome
and aluminum finish work in one or two cases looks like the bumper on a
ten year old Volga, are well assembled and feel good to the touch.  The
glass in the Jupiter 8's looks virtually idential to theat in the rigid
f2 Sonnar, except for coating.    The Jupiter 9's are also very much like
the 8.5cm Sonnar, but fortunately weigh a good bit less.  That Sonnar on
a ContaxII was so heavy it got to be a pain to carry.  The 13.5cm f4
is not, as I remember, anyway, quite similar to the Sonnar.

Performance.

The 1.5 Sonnars are FAST lenses, and distinctly less sharp than the f2's.
They are intended only for low light use, their diaphragms only stopping
down to f11.  They are sharp enough in daylight, but their real forte is
night use.  Considering the grainy, thicjk emulsion film, heavily pushed,
that was used with them in the prewar years, they were probably more
than sharp enough.  I have no Jupiter 3 to compare them with. Based on
other experiences with rusian lenses, I would expect the Jupiter 3 to
be about the same or a little sharper, in part due to multicoating.
Other than in deep shadow contrast and contrejour flare, there was no
real difference between the coated and uncoated 1.5 Sonnars.


The f2 Sonnars are really nice, even uncoated.  But I think they are no
better than the Jupiter 8's, which are very nice from f4 up.  The Jupiter 8
is a really nice lens.

The Industars are really Tessar derived, so I had no direct comparison, not
oning a 5cm f3.5 Tessar.  But the 61 and 61 L/D lenses are VERY sharp if
stopped down.  Then they are comparable to the nmore complex Sonnar for
sharpness.  The Industar 26 and 50 are very good lenses also.  I am comparing
here against some very nice Schneider Xenars and Meyer Primotars I have owned.

The Jupiter 9 is absolutely superb.  The 8.5cm f2 Sonnar that I owned was my
favorite Zeiss lens.  It was exceptionally sharp, with the usual unresolved
spherical aberration at f2 that made early f2 Sonnars good portrait lenses.
At f4 or greater it was the sharpest lens I then owned.  My f8 Jupiters are
much the same, though I think they might be a bit better corrected wide
open.  I don't think they're much sharper stopped down, but they certainly
are far less prone to flare because of their excellent coatings.

The Jupiter 11 and the 13.5cm Sonnar I cannot compare because I canno longer
find any negative that I made with the Sonnar.  I would say from memory that
my 13.5cm Sonnar was unexceptional, especially as I used it very little.
I have used the Jupter 11 only a few times.  It seems to be a sharp,
contrasty lens at medium apertures.

When all is considered, I feel that the Zeiss lenses were excellent in the
late '70's through mid '80's when I used them.  Remmbering that they were
then 40 to 50 years old means that they were truly outstanding in their
day!  But they, or indeed, thair later (Oberkochen) cousins are in no way
sufficiently superior to russian lenses to justify paying extra for them.
But then I am a user and not a collector, and the only reason that I own
more than two of anything is because it is out of production.  I am
assuring that I will have equipment to use, not to look at.


All of these lenses have important user value in today's photographic world.
They make images that look slightly different from the images made by new,
computer-optimized optics.  They are a touch less harsh and produce different
results in deep shadow and when wide open than modern lenses.  When combined
with a slow film (ISO 20 to 80) it is possible to make images which resemble
those of people like Keretsz or Moholy-Nagy or Mydans, made sixty years
ago, today.  This is impossible to do with modern fast films and lenses.
The appearance of the images is just not the same.  It is much like listening
to von Karjan and the Berlin Philharmonic on a CD and a quality solid state
bookshelf system, then listening to the same music on a pristine Deutsche
Gramofon vinyl LP on a transcription turntable using an Ortofon cartrdge and
tube type Bang&Oluffsen amps and big old Wharfdale speakers.  The first
is very probably more accurate reproduction, but the latter soothes and
relaxes with its subtle, smooth imperfections.  BTW, the russians still
make excellent tubes, too......

Regards,
Ed Lukacs
Georgetown, DE, USA



From Rollei Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 
From: "Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter)" [email protected]
Subject: [Rollei] Leica lenses are not always the best.

Actually Marc that is not true. You have been listening to the Leitz
propaganda machine again.

As test by Photodo using Hasselblad MTF equipment (regarded as among the
world's best), here are the weighted MTF results from each to compare.

Canon 50 mm: f1 0,46, f1,4 0,55, f2 0,66, f2,8 0,74, f4 0,78, f8 0,81
Leica 50 mm: f1 0,53, f1,4 0,61, f2 0,66, f2,8 0,73, f4 0,80, f8 0,85

As you can see the Canon holds its own next to the Leica. Very comparable.
Yes, the Leica does slightly better but not by very much.

Now let's look at one more since you brought that up.
Here are the results for 35mm F1.4 where the Canon is nearly 50% the price
of the Leica.

Canon 35 mm: f1,4 0,61,                     f4 0,82, f8 0,81
Leica 35 mm: f1,4 0,54, f2 0,65, f2,8 0,75, f4 0,75, f8 0,83

Sorry they do not list the F2 and F2,8 for the Canon but the overall given
the Canon is a 4.0 and the more expensive Leica only a 3.9...ouch! 50% more
$$ for what?

Peter K

....


From: [email protected] (VT)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica fans won't like this.(May issue Popular Photography)
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2001

greg [email protected] wrote:
>As a side, let me state that Herb's conclusion doesn't surprise me one
>bit. I've never tested my 35mm's against a Leica but we did once test a
>YashicaMat 124G against a Hasselblad. Same film, same scene, f/8, tripod
>mounted, and saw no discernable difference. I'm sure the Blad would
>easily win at wider f stops and so might the Leica, but at optimum
>aperature there seems to be no difference.

I know I'm kinda stickin' my neck out to be chopped off -

But in real-life/practice for most general photographic situations I
have found little difference between lenses - please, that is _not_ to
say there are _no_ differences.

In other words over the many years (more than I care to recount) I
have yet to come a across a really "bad" lens - well at least not for
some many years now.  Even moderately priced point & shoots seem to
have pretty good lenses for  general photography (that especially
includes zooms)

Now more critical eyes and work could well see differences - but again
in practical terms and enlargements these are not hugely significant -
again IMHO and YMMV.

Also please remember magazines and reviews are there specifically to
see differences -- so therefore the differences will inevitably be
highlighted.

I have used and accumulated enough lenses and equipment over the years
- and I know I have had outstanding lenses -

But the best photos I have taken are (obviously) always on the
lens/camera I had at hand at the time

-- and I find that they would not have benefitted any more
significantly if I had some other "better" lens
(other than different focal length more suited for the
subject/distance or SLR for better framing/parallax).

I've also looked back several years in review of my photos - and I
know that my earlier p&s for example was not as sharp as my current
p&s when compared side-by-side - but in isolation the results are fine
and even with hindsight and a side-by-side comparison - I really don't
think the differences are significant enough in practice that I wish I
had my current camera/lenses back then -

This applies equally to my SLR lenses.

I used to be a "definition" freak - striving to get the best/sharpest
results I could - and there is obviously a residue of that habit in me
even now - since I've done it for so long it's just plain "second
nature" - and I know I've had some really world class sharp glass
through my hands - hungrily devouring every review about lenses - and
trying to understand the criteria for sharpness and testing - I even
used to test my own lenses.

Now I use mainly a lens that is "practical" for my purposes - that has
what I would term above some threshold of acceptance - don't get me
wrong it _is_ sharp - but not necessarily "the world's sharpest" lens
- in fact I know it is not, since I have seen some really poor reviews
of the lens too (as well as obviously some pretty good reviews).

I recall some time back that one of the most popular lenses used by
professionals was a short range Nikon zoom (the infamous Nikkor
43-86mm f/3.5 zoom - introduced in 1964 and popular through the 70's)
- that in tests was recognized as being pretty "poor"- and this is the
days before zooms were common - but many pros used this consistently
the most, because it got them the photos they wanted for the
situation.

I do realize that great lenses (obviously) have their places - (and I
am a great admirer of such) especially when pushed to the limits - of
either big enlargements or used at the wider apertures - or both.

But for most general photographic situations - the differences in
practice is not going to be that significant......

Having said that I would _love_ to have a Leica and their outstanding
lenses - but I'd probably still shoot more with my moderately priced
P&S.
--
Vincent
[email protected]



From: "John Bateson" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Keppler Leica/Pentax Comparison Scam
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001


I'm going to jump in here and say that what Art Kramer (whom I now remember
reading in the pages of Modern Photography) said is very close to what
Herbert Keppler was getting at in his whole article, not just the Leica vs.
Takumar section. If you recall he starts out with a comparison between a
Zeiss 50mm f2 Planar and the 50 f1.4 Planar mounted on a Contarex Bullseye.
The f2 tested well, the f1.4 did not and NOTHING would make the Zeiss people
believe that particular lens could ever be faulty.  But Keppler goes on to
say that in the end all the testing in the world does not necessarily add up
to unquestioned optical superiority.  Oh yes, at the end he says he recently
bought a Leica M3 with a 50mm f2 Summicron. Why, because of optics? No
because of the picture taking qualities of a great camera.

Regards,
John Bateson



From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica fans won't like this.(May issue Popular Photography)
Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 

Anders Svensson [email protected] wrote:
>But the problem I feel some have is to get a believable,
>pedagogic explanation as to where the better "unmeasurable"
>qualitys are from a the very same Leica owners.

How do you measure the unmeasurable?

I get better resolution from my Leica 35/2 lens than my Nikkor one.  Do I
get 5x (the price difference) better results if you look just at resolution?
Nope.

Do I get 5x better results if you look at the "whole image"?  Probably not.
Hard to say, though.  The actual cost of Leica isn't 5x Nikon, though.  I
expect to be using my M6 long after the LCD on my N90 is dead.


I bought Leica not because of better picture quality over Contax.  (I wanted
a 35mm rangefinder, and it came down to an M6 vs. a G1 or G2.)  I bought
Leica because it felt better in my hands.  Build quality.  It didn't hurt
that Leica optics are legendary.  I'd suggest that for 95% of everything
shot, it doesn't matter whether you're using a Leica, a Contax, a Nikon, a
Canon, a Minolta, an Olympus, a Pentax, a (can I stop yet?).

Was buying a Leica worthwhile for me?  You betcha!  I've made a couple 20x
enlargements that really strain the boundaries of 35mm.  These were
once-in-a-lifetime shots that can't be repeated.  I was glad I had my Leica
for those occasions.


From: [email protected] (Steve)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: This is why I own a Leica
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001

[email protected] (Heavysteam) wrote:
>When us poor photographer
>folk are presented with the choice of waiting (forever) to have enough
>cash to buy a Leica, or getting something decent to embark us on our
>hobby...the choice is simple.

>The high cost of Leica is a myth.   There is no shortage of very nice used
>Leicas and lenses at prices that are similar or even cheaper than a typical
>modern camera.    If you want new, you will pay the same kinds of prices that
>you will pay for any other professional grade camera and lens, or in many
>cases, less.

I disagree, Leica Lenses routinely sell for much more than comparable Canon or
Nikon lenses.


For instance:

M Leica

50mm f2 Summicron in Excellent condition ~ 700
50mm f1.8 Nikon AF (NEW)  ~ 100

35mm f2 Summicron in Excellent condition ~ 750
35mm f2 Nikon AF (NEW) ~ 299

28mm f2.8 Elmarit in Excellent condition ~ 1100
28mm f2.8 Nikon AF (NEW) ~ 240

R Leica

50mm f2 Leica R ~ 895 new
50mm f1.8 Nikon ~ 100 New

Even many of the abused Leica lenses cost more than new or slightly used
Nikons or Canons.  I'm not saying they're not worth it.  But one has to admit
there is a tendancy to cost more than anything else.  And you will never pay
the same or less for a new Leica lens vs. a comparable new Canon or Nikon
lens...perhaps someone can find a contradiction?

Steve


From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Konica Hexar RF new lens release! Dual Lens??
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2002 

 [email protected] (DBaker9128) wrote:

>Nice lens! Too bad only 800 units though. Did they ever fix that back focus
>problem for Leica M cameras?

The "problem" never existed.  That tempest in a teapot was a result of a
misinterpretation of the different film-to-flange measurement techniques
needed for the two cameras.  There is no back focus problem using Leica
lenses on a Hexar RF (or Hexanons on a Leica).

This is documented in Andrew Nemeth's Leica FAQ at
http://www.nemeng.com/leica/index.shtml#010b

Paul


Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2002
From: "Mxsmanic" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: LEICA TEST - The Pics


"leicaddict" [email protected] wrote 
> One thing you'll soon learn is that non-shooting
> Leica owners is a myth.

The only way to say that with certainty is to take a census of every
single Leica owner in the world.

My local Leica dealer says that he has customers who come in almost
every month or two to trade one unused Leica in in exchange for another
one.  I find it hard to believe that these Leicas have ever come within
ten feet of a roll of film.


From: [email protected] (SAPasap)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 28 Feb 2002
Subject: Re: AE on a Leica - big deal

If you have any doubts about their quality, just check out their
resale value..

In 1990, a new M6 would discount out at about $2300 New York w/USA (rebates
could apply) and resell used retail for about $1900.  By 1995 the new NY
discount price was $2800; used M6's sold for $2100.

The new M6 is back down to under $2000; used ones regularly go for $1200-1400.

The whole resale value thing is simply not true with regard to the M6, the sole
rangefinder offering of the last almost 20 years.  If anything, quite the
opposite; resale value has plummeted in the last 10 years.  Don't take my word,
look at the old magazine ads.


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 
From: "tigerarm2000" [email protected]
Subject: How much better are Zeiss lenses VS Russian ones

Hi group,

Has anyone done a serious test of Zeiss lenses Vs their Soviet clones?
As we all know that most Soviet lenses are Zeiss clones of old
designs. Unfortunately most Zeiss lenses are either very hard to find
or too expensive to buy.It would be interesting to know that our
Soviet optics are the equal or almost the equal of their Western
conterparts.

Also people seem to have been impressed by the quality of CZJ
optics.How do they compare to West German optics? Zeiss or Leitz?
In $$$ there are huge differences.But many claim they can't reliably
tell the difference from the results.

A Chinese optical expert has rated all famous brands of lenses and
said CZJ was second only to Zeiss of West but better than
Nikon,Canon,etc. Sometimes we get better than what we paid for.

Zhang


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: How much better are Zeiss lenses VS Russian ones

 tigerarm2000 wrote:
>Has anyone done a serious test of Zeiss lenses Vs their Soviet clones?
>As we all know that most Soviet lenses are Zeiss clones of old
>designs. Unfortunately most Zeiss lenses are either very hard to find
>or too expensive to buy.It would be interesting to know that our
>Soviet optics are the equal or almost the equal of their Western
>conterparts.
>

I DO own a slew of Zeiss lenses, both CZJ and CZ, and a bunch of Leica
glass as well, old and new, along with my SPS gear.

There is no question that Oberkochen (Carl Zeiss, Zeiss-Opton) and modern
Leica (Solms) lenses are the best in the world;  the older Leitz (Wetzlar)
and Carl Zeiss Jena lenses come next, and the SPS stuff is right in there
with the CZJ optics.  But the differences are QUITE minor.  (For that
matter, Schneider and, until their demise, Voigtlander lenses compete
nicely with modern Zeiss and Leica lenses.)

The law of diminishing returns applies -- the $75 Russian Jupiter-3 and the
$500 1.5/5cm CZJ Sonnar and the $700 1.4/50 Leica Summilux will all produce
images which thee and me almost certainly could distinguish only with
difficulties, and only at the largest blow-ups.

Marc
[email protected]



Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: New Leica M Lens Test...
From: [email protected] (Simon ALIBERT)
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2002

Hi,

I just put online all the lens test (MTF) of the 'M' Line, it's from a
french magazine, Hope it will help :-)

http://simon.alibert.free.fr/leica/lens/
--
 Simon.
 [email protected]


From: [email protected] (Robert Monaghan)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Leica M lens tests URL followup was Re: Leica...Is It Worth It?
Date: 14 Apr 2002 


just a followup, thanks to Simon, for posting some French magazine tests
of the Leica M line at http://simon.alibert.free.fr/leica/lens/ today...

from these charts, there were 15 outstanding ratings for 17 Leica lenses
(under 1 outstanding rating per lens average), or 7.8% outstanding ratings
(15 out of 192 tests). Almost half (8 of 17) had NO outstanding ratings...

Some 98 out of 192 tests or 51% of the ratings were BELOW very good,
meaning they were good, average, or poor.

Some of the much vaunted fast M lenses scored at and even below the poor
level wide open...

In short, these independent tests don't support any claims that Leica
lenses are 50% better than competing brands.

If anything, I may have to take back my statements that Leica lenses may
be 10% to 15% better than other OEM brands, thanks to having seen yet
another comprehensive independent test provided here by Simon (thanks!)...

grins bobm



Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2002 
From: Jacques [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Look-A-Leica


Hi, again,

thanx for the prompt reply and no sweat as it is all a compliment.

And, just for the record:

Though there have been many briefs on how to tell a "factory" made Leica, at
the time it was all a matter of cost. Collectors would pay extra to have the
camera so well done that not even anyone at Leitz could tell the difference.
Further, when camera collecting was a strange hobby of the rich, Leica
collecting was barely on the radar and it was nothing for a camerarepairperson
to order top covers with serial number over the phone. Yes some even have
serial numbers on the inside. These replica cameras as sold can be found in
quite large collections around the world...modification was more common than
people think today by many workers. As time went it was seen that Leitz made
custom cameras, (other stuff and often), during its history as a matter of
course and there are very many "real" gems out there from Wetzlar. This however
only increased the mistique when one finds a strange unit, and well done, it is
from Wetzlar........

......things fall when the tree shakes.
...

Best, safe wishes for the new year, i remain,

jacques




From: "[email protected]" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Are Leica Lenses Really Better Than Zuiko?
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002


Here are some lens test of the 50mm f1.8 Zuiko and the 90mm F2.0 Zuiko
compaired to a Leitz 50mm f2 Summicron and a Leitz 90mm R and a Leitz 90mmM
APO.

More tests at:  http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm

I hope Leica addicts don't get too PO'ed.


Olympus Zuiko 50mm f1.8
OM-2S with mirror and auto diaphragm prefire, serial number 3694244,
paired comparison with sample below to examine potential production
variation; identical coating
Vignetting = C- @ f/1.8, A- @ f/2.8, A thereafter
Distortion = slight barrel
Aperture  Center    Corner
f/1.8     B         C
f/2.8     A-        B+
f/4       A+        A
f/5.6     A         A-
f/8       A         A-
f/11      A-        B+
f/16      B+        B
Notes: High contrast at f/1.8 to f/2.8 and f/11 to f/16, very high
contrast at f/4 to f/8.

Leitz 50mm f/2 Summicron-M (4th generation 1978 "Mandler" design,
multi-coated)
Leica M2 with self-timer
Distortion = none
Vignetting = B @ f/2, A- @ f/2.8, A @ f/4
Aperture  Center    Corner
f/2       B-        B+
f/2.8     B         A-
f/4       B+        A-
f/5.6     A         A+
f/8       A-        A-
f/11      B+        B+
f/16      B+        B+
Notes: Moderately high contrast at f/2.8 to f/5.6, and f/16; high
contrast at f/8 to f/11.

90mm f/2.0 Zuiko Macro (multi-coated)

OM-2000 with mirror and aperture prefire
Vignetting = C+ @ f/2, B at f/2.8, B @ f/4, A- thereafter
Distortion = none
Aperture  Center    Corner
f/2       B+        A-
f/2.8     A-        B+
f/4       B+        B
f/5.6     A-        B+
f/8       A-        A-
f/11      A-        B+
f/16      A-        B-
f/22      A-        B-
Notes: Moderately high contrast images at f/22; high contrast images at
f/2, f/2.8 and f/16; very high contrast images at f/4, f/5.6 and f/11;
extremely high contrast images at f/8. Paired SQF grade and contrast
comparisons to the Leitz 90mm f/2 Summicron-R test done on a Leicaflex,
with SQF differences significant at the 1/3 grade level.
Condition: 9+ (KEH=Ex+).



Leitz 90mm f/2 Summicron-R (1978 era 3-cam)
Leicaflex with mirror and diaphragm prefire
Vignetting = B @ f/2, A- @ f/2.8, A thereafter
Distortion = slight pincushion
Aperture  Center    Corner
f/2*      C+        C
f/2       B         B
f/2.8     B+        B
f/4       B+        A-
f/5.6     A         A
f/8       A-        A-
f/11      A         A
f/16      A         B
Notes: * = Tested with a B+W 010 filter. Moderately high contrast images
at f/2; high contrast images at f/2.8 and f/16; very high contrast at
f/4 and f/11; extremely high contrast images at f/5.6 and f/8. Lens
condition 9+ (KEH=Ex+). Paired SQF grade and contrast comparison to the
90mm f/2 Zuiko Macro test done on a OM-2000, with SQF differences
significant at the 1/3 grade level.



Leitz 90mm f/2.0 APO-Summicron-M
Leica M4-P with cable release
Vignetting = none
Distortion = none
Aperture  Center    Corner
f/2*      B         C+
f/2       B         C+
f/2.8     B+        B-
f/4       A-        B
f/5.6     A+        B
f/8       A-        B
f/11      A-        A-
f/16      B+        B
Notes: * = with a B+W filter. High contrast images at f/2 to f/2.8; very
high contrast images at all other apertures.

--
Jim Mueller




From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: New Leica M Lens Test...
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002

[email protected] (Simon ALIBERT)
wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I just put online all the lens test (MTF) of the 'M' Line, it's from a
>french magazine, Hope it will help :-)
>
>http://simon.alibert.free.fr/leica/lens/

Fascinating - thanks for posting this.

One thing that leaps off the page at me is the fact that the 35/1.4, the
35/2.0 the 50/2.0, the 75/1.4 and the new 90/2.0 APO all have virtually
identical performance from f/2.0 to f/8.  The 35 and 75 Summiluxes have
essentially identical performance from 1.4 to 8, while the charts for the
35, 50 and 90 Summicrons are essentially identical from 2.0 to 11.  IMO
this speaks volumes for the consistency of lens design at Leica.


A few other observations.

It's obvious that the 50/1.4 could use a redesign (as so many of us have
asked for to no avail).

The new 28 Summicron has been said to be identical to the 28 Elmarit, with
an extra stop.  This chart seems to confirm that.

The performance of the new 135/3.4 looks remarkable - to score that high at
4.0 is amazing for a short tele.

The bench results of the Noctilux are egregious.  Luckily most lenses seem
to perform better than their bench tests might indicate (or the really good
ones are compromised by our lack of technique so it all evens out).

It would sure be nice to have some other lenses from different
manufacturers to compare, but I think CdI might start to object if you put
too much of their material on the web - they're notoriously humorless about
this sort of thing :-/

Thanks again,
Paul



From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica M lens tests URL followup was Re: Leica...Is It Worth It?
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 

[email protected] (DBaker9128) wrote:

>I also find many divergent results with this data compared to both Erwin Putts
>reports and Photodo MTF graphs, so I'm not considering these "unknown" French
>magazine graphs as accurate.

We have no way of comparing the results across these three sets of tests
(this one, Erwin and Photodo) since we don't know the test methods and how
the numeric results have been interpreted in each case.  The best we can do
is compare one lens from the lineup to others *within the same test
program*.

FWIW, these tests correspond pretty well to my experience with the set of
these lenses that I've used.

Paul



From: "Meryl Arbing" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Are Leica Lenses Really Better Than Zuiko?
Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002


It depends who you look at:
This site: http://www.mawddwy.freeserve.co.uk/50mmtest.htm shows the
Zuiko50mm as inferior to both the Leica and the Zeiss. Definitely less
resolving power indicated for the Zuiko.
This site seems to indicate that the Zuiko 50 is about the same as the Leica
http://brashear.phys.appstate.edu/lhawkins/photo/zuiko50.txt

I don't think it is really an important issue for Olympus users in any case.
What is the point of obsessing whether Lens X is 1% better or worse than the
one that I own if Lens X doesn't fit on my camera anyway? All that any
camera user can do is get the best that his system and his budget will allow
and not worry about the other brands.

I have Contax... I know that there are few affordable long telephotos in the
Zeiss line up. Do I lose sleep over that fact and obsess about whether I
should dump my Contax gear and buy Canon?? No, even though I know that Canon
L lenses are excellent I still like my Contax bodies and that is worth more
to me.


"[email protected]" [email protected] wrote 
> Here are some lens test of the 50mm f1.8 Zuiko and the 90mm F2.0 Zuiko
> compaired to a Leitz 50mm f2 Summicron and a Leitz 90mm R and a Leitz 90mmM
> APO.
>
> More tests at:  http://members.aol.com/olympusom/lenstests/default.htm
>
> I hope Leica addicts don't get too PO'ed.
>...



Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 
To: Russiancamera-user 
From: Tim [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Super Leica fake book!  ;  ))

I just received a copy of 300 Leica copies by Pont/Princelle isbn
2-906840-03-3

352 pages of detail after detail after photo after photo of cameras based on
the Leica designs.

Now this is the first time I've seen a copy and it way beyond my
expectations!   As an overview its fantastic! (in my eyes!)

Now if there are better guides or more detail books on Russian Cameras
and/or Leicas do let me know!

A very happy,

Tim


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 
From: Paul Shinkawa [email protected]
To: Russian Camera Group [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Photos taken with Russian/Ukrainian lenses

The owner of SOVIET LENS GALLERY at

http://www.ismweb.co.jp/osaka/slg/

has updated his photographs taken with Soviet lenses.

The site is in Japanese, but the lens ID's with each
photo are in English. This URL has been posted here
before, but since the update, I thought it deserved
reposting.

-Paul


Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 
To: [email protected]
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Super Leica fake book!  ;  ))

Tim wrote:
>I just received a copy of 300 Leica copies by Pont/Princelle isbn
>2-906840-03-3

Also worthy of note is "HPR" (Hans P Rajner), LEICA COPIES, a rather more
scholarly book.

Marc
[email protected] 


From minolta mailing list:
Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 
From: "wsrphoto" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Minolta and Leica -- historian needed

--- In ManualMinolta@y..., "Simon Boudreau" navigroups@h... wrote:
> well, being quite new to the world of Minolta, the only information
> i have gathered was from groups such as this one...

I know the Minolta 135mm f4 preset bellows lens (w/o focusing
mechanism) was originally developed under a contract with Leica.  The
lens came with a leica screw mount (M39) and a M39->MC adaptor and
tool.  The later telephoto (focusing) version of the lens had just the
MC lens mount.

It's funny because when I asked about this lens on a similar Leica
group, all I got was silence and one denial Leica did such things.
Yeah, right.  The cameras of the 1970's was a different era for both.


--Scott--


from rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 
From: modlabs [email protected]
Subject: the camera leica should have made...

http://www.cameraquest.com/voigtBR2.htm
the new Voigtlander Bessa R2 is out.  If I was to get another
rangefinder, this would probably be it.  Any thoughts/comments?

cheers,
pat


from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Mon, 22 Apr 2002 
From: Paul Shinkawa [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] T-mount lenses

All:

I just acquired a brand new Vivitar TA-11 which is a
T-mount adapter for the LTM. I have a set of T-mount
lenses which I am going to try out on my
Russian/Ukrainian LTM cameras. Has anyone tried this?

I was planning on verifying the focusing scales of the
lenses on an SLR with another Vivitar adapter. Then,
since the new adapter does not touch the focusing cam
on the RF, I was going to scale focus. If I use the
rangefinder spot as a bullseye, I can get a general
idea of the framing from the results.

I've got T-mounts in focal lengths where I don't have
LTM lenses (250mm and 400mm) and I usually use these
lenses focused out close to infinity anyway.

-Paul


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 
From: "yupiter3" [email protected]
Subject: Re: japanese vs. russian rf roulette, 1.2 lenses per RF? etc.

Hi Robert;

  >I wonder at about alot of the weird lens to film flange distances
quoted on this board at times....Maybe I got a better group of
cameras? or my measurements are better? Mine have been very close to
the nominal leica 28.80 mm dimension.....

>The camera's lenses of mine have been the Ebay Russian roulette;
with the ones I have received of of Ebay.....The lenses focus cams
have been fair to ok; but several of my Jupiter 9's and Jupiter 3's
have had their lens block assemblies NOT shimmed correctly...ie they
do not focus to the scale setting on the lens at infintiy; or at all
the other positions.........My Canon 50mm F1.2 LSM is spot on; and
matches to my Zorki 3C very well; where as the Jupiter 3's of mine
are both off enough to be not well usable wide open.......I believe
old Kilroy (Boris?) must have regreased many of these lenses and
goofed up the DC bias of the focus....ie they can be real sharp
sometimes wide open when the subject is a bit away from the focused
area.....My canon f1.2 does not have this weird "performance".....

Ok here is some data for my some of my cameras is lens flane to film
rail dimensions:

>FED2         1.135inches  = 28.83 mm
>FED5b        1.133        = 28.78 mm
>Fed3         1.134        = 28.80 mm
>Zorki 6      1.133        = 28.78 mm
>Lennigrad    1.135/1.137  = 28.83/28.88mm
>Zorki 4      1.134/1.136  = 28.80/28.85mm

>All data taken with the same Mitutoyo Dial Caliper by a registered
Mechanical Engineer; and also checking the caliper using a Mitutoyo
1.00000 inch gage block to test the caliper.. ( Block good to 10
millionths of an inch .) The double numbers for the Lennigrad and
Zorki 4 are the range..ie the film plane and lens flange are slightly
cocked; ie not parallel.....Regards Philip


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 
From: "parlin44" [email protected]
Subject: "shimming" up your body to 28.8mm

To give other comrades some ideas on the process of caliberating the
body to 28.8mm see the "shim_it.jpg" in files section under "parlin
stuff" folder.

Yes, it's a meticulous process and rather time consuming

parlin



From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 
From: "tigerarm2000" [email protected]
Subject: Re: japanese vs. russian rf roulette, 1.2 lenses per RF? etc.

--- In russiancamera@y..., "parlin44" parlin44@h... wrote:
> You have far less problems of this nature with Contax/Kiev system and
> it's 30's design! now that's a testimony to Zeiss Ikon's superiority.
>
> parlin

I have some Russian Tasma B/W film that I used to test the cameras I
bought. I shoot my bookshelf with a well tested Zorki or Fed and a
Kiev and a Canon A-1 or Olympus OM-1N for comparason. I use one roll
of film for all the cameras and lenses to eliminate other
variants.Then I view the film with a 50x microscope. The Kiev always
produce the closest or equal quality of images to Canon or OM
lenses. Both Japanese cameras and Kiev make better results than Zorki
or Fed. I think the difference is caused by the less accurate
rangefinders of Leica copies. If any of our comrades has performed
such a test, I would be very glad to know the results of your test.

Based on my experience, I agree with comrade parlin's conclusion. It
is also a suprise to see these 40-50 year old machines (soon belong to
antiques) perform so well. Zorki and fed leica copies won on the cute
side.

Zhang


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 
From: "yupiter3" [email protected]
Subject: Re: japanese vs. russian rf roulette, 1.2 lenses per RF? etc.

Hello Zhang;

>Maybe the Contax/Kiev system's lack of a "focusing cam arm" on the
camera body makes for a more robust camera rangefinder system........

>Jay mentioned about the cams getting bent/moved during installation
of a lens on a FED or Zorki....I believe he is correct because all my
russian leicas have their cams in different positions.......

>The cameras were almost all aligned for infinity adjustment when
purchased; BUT several had close focusing problems......this was
because the Cam was rotated/tweaked /missaligned......these cameras
would take good photos at infinity focus; but they would yield
progressively worst misfocus when focused say closer than 10
meters..........When I first started fooling with these Russian gems
I did not realize how important the close fcus cam adjustment
was.......I was chasing my own tail!  

regards Philip 


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 
From: "yupiter3" [email protected]
Subject: Re: "shimming" up your body to 28.8mm

Parlin; If you need shims that are .003 inch (.076mm ) ; they can
also be made out of hand drafting film or Xerox Film for an
engineering large copier..... The material here is made out of
Polyester  (Mylar); and is alot more stable than paper shims.... Also
sometimes .004 inch thick Mylar is used...... Some of the Kodak films
were made out of Mylar such as 2475 recording film.....Probably some
old plain scrap negatives could be used as shims too!    The machine
shop supply catalogs here stock brass shim material in 1,2,3,4,5 ..
mils thickness 1 mil = .001 inch... The thin stuff can be cut with a
sharp sissors...Check for burrs....The stainless shim material is too
difficult to cut for me on small jobs...

Regards Philip



From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 
From: "Jay Y Javier" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: "shimming" up your lens

Parlin,

The optical block screws off with a bit of force (grab the front, twist, and
unscrew till it goes).  On the optical block threads, you'll likely find a
metal ring or two, which would be the original shims. If more are needed, cut
paper to the shape of these rings and insert. J-3 and J-8 LTM lenses are
similarly put together.

Before adding shims to the J-9, check first if it correctly focusses at
infinity (by groundglass on a camera proven to have a 28,8mm register).  Likely
reason for bad focus in J-9 is from incorrectly reassembled focus  and rf cam
blocks. Now, this isn't something you'd like to go into- trust me! :)

Onion skin is good for shimming camera lens mounts too.

Jay


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 
From: Paul Shinkawa [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: "shimming" up your body to 28.8mm

fernando:

It is possible to warp the lens flange by tightening
the screws. Try loosening all of the screws very
slightly and then put the lens back on. Try the
focusing it again. If this makes a difference, you are
probably causing some warpage by tightening or perhaps
even over-tightening. Sometimes warpage can be
prevented by tightening the screws  oposite each other
rather than in a circular pattern, somewhat like the
way you would replace the lug nuts on a nautomobile
wheel.

There are experts here who can address shimming better
than I can.

-Paul



Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2002 
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
From: Stephen Rosenbach [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Web Article - "Leica-Derived Soviet Rangefinder Cameras"

Comrades!

Our Comrade Jim Blazik has created a new web site, "Rangefinder Cameras of
the Soviet Era", at

http://www.geocities.com/fzorkis/

The first item to be available on this website is an article by... ahem...
yours truly, entitled "Leica-Derived Soviet Rangefinder Cameras." The
article is illustrated by a set of excellent photos by Comrad Blazik.

There will be more to come in the future on this web site. We hope you will
enjoy this first installment.

Best regards,

SteveR
a.k.a. Comrade Stoisha


From: Tony  Polson [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: New Leica M7 made by Konica?
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 


[email protected] (Rjmdmc) wrote:
>
>Whats wrong with the Hexar RF? I've had a Hexar RF since they came out. I use
>their 28,50, and the 90. I also have a Tri-Elmar and everything works great.
>What seems to be the problem?


Harvey,

Be assured that there isn't one.  The alleged "problem" occurred when
a Leica fan measured the lens flange to film plane distance on a Hexar
RF and compared it to that of a Leica M.

There appeared to be a small but significant difference, but it was
later discovered that whoever measured it just got it wrong.

If I was Konica, I'd find the b-----d and sue him!


From: "David Kieltyka" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: New Leica M7 made by Konica?
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002

...
> If I was Konica, I'd find the b-----d and sue him!

Negative. It seems the Hexar RF's back focus tolerance is too large...three
times that of Leica (and presumably Cosina with the Voigtl�nder line). This
means some samples of the camera focus fine while with others the focus is
off (to varying degrees), requiring an adjustment. This has nothing to do
with Erwin Puts' measurements but has been independently verified by Stephen
Gandy of CameraQuest and Bob Shell, both of whom noticed focusing problems
with their Hexars and sent them off to techs (to Konica in Japan in
Stephen's case) for scrutiny and then adjustment.

Konica won't be suing anyone. Nor will they admit they goofed either.

-Dave-


From: [email protected] (Heinz Richter)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 19 Apr 2002 
Subject: Re: New Leica M7 made by Konica?

>>Leicas haven't been "made" in Germany since the 1960's. They used to be
>>made in the small town of Midland, Ontario, Canada from the M3 until the
>>last M4 series.

You are quite misinformed.

The majority of M3 cameras was made in Wetzlar.  They did, however, made a few
badges at the Midland plant.  The initial M4 was only made in Germany, as was
the M5.  Early models of the M4-2 were made in Midland, but later production
was moved to Germany.  The Midland plant was used largely for military
production, and space was no longer available for camera manufacture.

>>The Leicaflex R3 and R4 had the basic camera made by Minolta (the R4 was
>>the same chassis as the XD-11)

The R3 and R4 only used the raw body casting from Minolta.  Other components,
mainly electronics, metering system, shutter, lens mount etc. were either made
by Leitz or obtained from different sources.


>>AFAIK all Leica are now assembled in Portugal, and QC in Germany

I just came back from a visit to the Leica Plant in Solms.  The M camera
subassemblies are doen in Portugal.  Final assembly and quality control in done
in Solms.  Lenses are entirely made in Solms.
Heinz
GMP  Photography
FOTOgraphicART
GMB Custom Black & White Lab
http://www.goldmem.com



[Ed. note: I'm not sure about the cause, but I think it is a good idea to have
RF bodies checked, and your lenses, to ensure proper registration, esp. with older
bodies and lenses, or lenses in adapters...]

From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 
From: "[email protected]" [email protected]
Subject: Film register problems for everyone?!

I was discussing the issue of film-flange register with a certain repair
wizard who lives up on a mountain. The question was how you would check
film-flange register on a given camera/lens combination. The conversation
started with my idea of having my Hexar RF tested against a selection of
lenses and concluded with my wondering if it was my M3 instead that needed
to be checked.

First, besides telling me that as a real world test it is impossible to do
because the film starts to bow inward after a minute (relative humidity
changing); he also shared this interesting insight: Leica late LTM (IIIc and
on) and M bodies contract over time, enough to cause the body focus to
change. This is the same principle which makes boring out old engine blocks
more attractive than using new ones; the cylinders keep their shape. If I
recall, he called it "seasoning" of the alloy.

To be fair, this isn't just Leica, but anything with a diecast chassis (ever
wonder why old SLRs sometimes focus a hair past infinity?). Leitz perceived
this to be such a problem in the screwmount era that it advertised that they
were made of metal stampings to improve precision and stability. Then they
started die-casting and the party line became that die-casting was better
(in reality, die-casting allows smaller tolerances but apparently does
nothing to promote stability).

Second, register problems do not manifest themselves with lenses like the
Summilux 75 close-up, but rather with fast, wide lenses at infinity. Wide
lenses have very little focus travel at the longer distances, and if there
is a register problem (like body focus being too long), the lens will fall
well short of focusing at infinity or focus well past it. This would tend to
suggest that a lot of the people with troublesome Summilux 75s and Leica M6s
close up are having rangefinder or lens problems, not register problems.
Having used a 21/2.8 both on my M3 and my Hexar, both seem to be fine at
f/2.8 at infinity at 50x. My interlocutor said that that fact suggested that
it was unnecessary to test either camera.

My personal conclusion from this is that is that a lot of old M cameras
probably have less than ideal body focus and that the modern Ms (of whatever
brand) are heading that way. It also makes me think twice about all of this
(probably manufactured) argument about the Hexar RF's register distance
being slightly longer, (1) because most people who have complained about
focusing problems have complained about long lenses not focusing
(=rangefinder alignment); (2) because the Leica frame of reference on any
camera before the M6 (1985) is a moving (contracting) target; and (3) given
the nominal dimensions of the Hexar FFR (28.00 +/- 0.03mm) vs. the Leica M
(27.95 +/- 0.01), it seems just as likely that after 10 years, a Hexar RF
could have a FFR closer to Leica spec than a Leica does.

I suspect that the Hexar RF is now mfd to the same FFR as the Leica (27.95
to the inner rails). because it seems that everyone who has had real
register problems has had a low-S/N Hexar. Even then, the majority of
complaints I have seen have centered around focusing long and/or fast normal
lenses.  I surmise that Konica figured out the problem fairly early on.

The solution to all of this seems to be checking body focus (on any camera)
every 10 years or so.

Strange.
------------
Dante Stella
http://www.dantestella.com


From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 
From: "Sheldon Strauss" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] [hexarRF] Film register problems for everyone?!


Huh?

I think someone is dreaming, maybe a nightmare (freddy's messing with my
camera)!!

I have no doubt expansion - shinkage happens but don't you think that you
notice that if true your lenses would not fit in particular on a thread
mount Leica. If the camera shrunk the lenses couldn't be changed. Either you
couldn't remove the lense on the camera (too tight) or couldn't mount one
(too small).

The car engine analogy is a realty pushing it. The interior of a gasoline
engine approches 2000 degrees I don't know of any car engines that do.
SLR's go out alignment because the mirror stops over a period of time move
or bend due the force of impact of the mirror causing the light path to
lenghten this affects short focal lenth lenses more simply because they
don't move as a longer focal lenght lense. Another possible problem the
mirror pads  and focusing screen. The pads that support the screen can dry
out and crumble causing the path to shorten. I think rubber aging causes
more problems that metal shinkage.

Sheldon


From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2002 
From: Michael Darntonm [email protected]
Subject: RE: [hexarRF] Film register problems for everyone?!


I think Dante's been thinking too hard, but you're wrong about the lens
mounting thing--shrinkage would only apply to cast parts, and the
essential lens and mount parts are machined. He's referring to the main
body casting, and it doesn't have to be heated to 2000 degrees--when
they cast the top of my tablesaw they put it aside for a year or so to
"cure" and then brought it back in and machined it flat after it went
wild over time.

To me it's a "who cares?" issue--Leica sets it so it works when it goes
out the door, based on numbers they've had 80 years to figure out. Down
the road, someone (qualified) does a CL and ADJUST and checks those
figures--if they're smaller, they put in a couple of shims, and put it
back where it belongs.


Someone on another list made a big deal about measuring and film and a
whole bunch of stuff that doesn't matter because you can't control it,
but it's really pretty easy to do it--I ripped into one of my LTM
Leicas, found a bunch of shims under the mount that showed me how they'd
done it, and when I put it back together took out my electronic caliper
and put different ones in better. It's not rocket science if you have
the tools.

--Michael


From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 
From: "celicav8" [email protected]
Subject: Minolta/Leica connection (was: Nikon EM)

Ah, Minolta! My cue, I believe; at least as far as history and the
Leica-Minolta connection is concerned (still haven't got the sticky
aperture coupling ring on my SRT-201 going...)

Once upon a time, Minolta have contructed a very nice and now well
loved camera (among Minolta afficionados), called the XE-1 aka XE-7
aka XE. The same chassis was used for the Leica R3, with
modifications to the electronics and metering system. In fact minolta
made the parts and Leica assembled the R3. The same procedure was
followed in the Minolta XD-7 aka XD-11 aka XD and the Leica R4. (BTW:
if you want to have a databack on your R4 and yet want to save money
for lenses, buy the Minolta databack for the XD-series; it fits
perfectly to the R4, for less than half the money!)

As for Contax/Yashica: both brand names are owned by Kyoshera now.

Acmel makes those tiny little habberdashery plastic things called
cameras; they may also make the Minox but I am not sure either.
...


From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Minolta/Leica connection (was: Nikon EM)

celicav8 at [email protected] wrote:

> Once upon a time, Minolta have contructed a very nice and now well
> loved camera (among Minolta afficionados), called the XE-1 aka XE-7
> aka XE. The same chassis was used for the Leica R3, with
> modifications to the electronics and metering system. In fact minolta
> made the parts and Leica assembled the R3. The same procedure was
> followed in the Minolta XD-7 aka XD-11 aka XD and the Leica R4. (BTW:
> if you want to have a databack on your R4 and yet want to save money
> for lenses, buy the Minolta databack for the XD-series; it fits
> perfectly to the R4, for less than half the money!)
>

The Leica R3 used the Minolta XE-7 body and shutter.  The mirror box
and prism were made by Leica, as was the top cover.  As the Leica SLRs moved
from R3 to R4 and beyond, fewer Minolta parts were used in each iteration,
and more parts were made by Leica.  When I was in Solms at the new Leica
factory shortly after the R5 was introduced, I asked them what percentage of
the camera was Minolta and they showed me on a dismantled camera.  Not much
was Minolta, even at that stage. Today the R8 uses no Minolta parts at all.

While at the factory, I spoke with an old German quality control man who was
checking a shipment of zoom lenses, just in from Minolta.  I asked him if it
was true that they rejected 75% of the lenses Minolta sent them.  He
answered very matter of factly, "Not from every batch."

> As for Contax/Yashica: both brand names are owned by Kyoshera now.
>

it's Kyocera, which is an abbreviation of Kyoto Ceramics.  They make a wide
variety of industrial ceramics in addition to optics.


The Contax brand name still belongs to the Zeiss Trust, who license it for
use on the cameras built by Kyocera.  Incidentally, Kyocera/Yashica was not
Zeiss's first choice for camera maker.  Initially they went to Pentax and
got as far as advanced prototype before realizing that Pentax simply could
not produce the quality they required.  What Pentax was left with from this
period was the K mount, a joint Zeiss-Pentax design.  It is no accident that
flange to film distance is identical in Pentax and Contax SLRs!

> Acmel makes those tiny little habberdashery plastic things called
> cameras; they may also make the Minox but I am not sure either.

They make a full line of little cameras and accessories using Minox type
film.  These were also sold under the Asanuma name in Japan for a while.
Minox buys one model from them and sells it under the Minox name.  The rest
of the Minox submini cameras are still built in their factory in Wetzlar,
not far from the original Leitz works.

Bob



From: [email protected] (DBaker9128)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 13 Apr 2002 
Subject: Re: Post-purchase thoughts on Leica system

dilbertdroid2 wrote about a comparison of Contax G to Leica M lenses:
"Already have made the comparison.  Yes, the contax lenses are very good but
they are not as good, and you can see it on the light table."

I use both M & G systems. What I can see on the light table (using Schneider 4x
and 8x loupes and Velvia) is a dead heat between the 90 Elmarit-M / Sonnar 90
and 50 Elmar-M / 45 Planar.

Doug from Tumwater


From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Thu, 11 Apr 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Nikon EM

 celicav8 at [email protected] wrote:
> You could be right on that; I think they only make lenses in Germany
> now and maybe these even aren't assembled there, but elsewhere.


Bert,

Excuse me, but I know this stuff.

All Leica M lenses are made 100% and assembled 100% in Solms, Germany.
Most Leica R lenses are likewise made 100% and assembled 100% in
Solms, Germany.  The few which are not are 100% made by Kyocera in
Japan and 100% assembled there.

Leica M camera bodies are made in Portugal and shipped to Solms where
final assembly and calibration are done.  I don't know about R8 because the
last time I visited my friends at Leica in Solms that camera was not yet
in production.  Preceeding R cameras were built in Solms from German and
Japanese parts.

Bob


From rollei mailing list:
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Leica M is not Konica M

you wrote:
>That was Nikon vs Contax.

There are TWO separate problems here.

Contax and Nikon RF lenses were interchangeable -- that is, they would
mount on the other camera -- but focusing could be a problem, as the Nikon
RF used a different RF cam-slope than used on the Contax RF.

Some Japanese LTM lenses would not mount properly on Leica TM cameras
because of having the pitch of the thread slightly wrong.  This primarily
affected very early Canon RF lens production and had been cured by 1950 or
'52.  I believe all Nikon LTM lenses have the proper LTM dimensions -- 39mm
by 26 turns-per-inch Whitworth.

Marc
[email protected] 


From camera fix mailing list:
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2002 
From: Gene Poon [email protected]
Subject: Re: Cloudy lens

Kenith Ryan wrote:
 There is a lens on eBay that I am thinking about bidding on. The only thing
that is holding me back is that "some of the glass has a light cloudy look",
accordind to the seller. I am wondering whether this cloudiness could be
cleaned off or if it is a lost cause. Other than the cloudiness he says the
class has no other defects.


What kind of lens?

A lot of Leitz lenses from the early M-mount era and before, do that.  I have an
M-mount 135mm that I bought, thinking it was a film of evaporated oil from the
mount grease.  Wrong...it won't clean up.

-GP



Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 
From: Simon ALIBERT [email protected]
To: Robert Monaghan [email protected]
Subject: Re: yes, please send html, thanks! Re: New Leica M Lens Test...

Robert Monaghan at [email protected] wrote 

> sure, please send the html document, thanks very much ;-)

Et voila http://www.chefurka.com/lenstest/lenstest.html
Best regards,

--
S.


From Hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 
From: Akhil Lal [email protected]
Subject: [HUG] Leica 0-series. (Was: Buyer's frustration)

I own one of these, as do several people I know.

Irrespective of what some have said, there should not be any film wind
problems- if there are, your camera is defective off the assembly line needs to
be repaired.

For those who wish to buy one, the O-series  is available from B & H in New
York at the clearance price of US $1095, about 60% off its original price.

Regards,
Akhil


From Hasselblad mailing list:
Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 
From: Mark Kronquist [email protected]
Subject: Re: [HUG] Leica 0-series.

The O series is both a royal pain and a wonderful delight to use. Your O
should operate as smoothly as any Blad...mine does. Though at Terrys Camera
in Long Beach CA we were playing with his demo and found his to be defective
as yours appears to be. His went off to Leica and was either fixed or
replace quickly (Leica NJ)


From: "Grant Dixon" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What is so good about Leicas?
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002


"Mxsmanic" [email protected] wrote 
> Actually a Leica M with a lens will not cost much different from a high-end
> Nikon or Canon with a nice zoom, so the difference in price isn't as great
> as it might first appear, and all three cameras will produce similar
> pictures.

While I find that the  Leica cameras are wonderful pieces of engineering and
are worth the price if you are willing to pay it.  But to say that the price
difference between a Leica M series and a top line Nikon is not great is a
bit hard to understand.  I shoot with three fixed lenses  a 35 mm,  50 mm
and an 85 mm.  If you select a Nikon F5 and compare it against a Leica M7,
both being the respective flag ships, then add on three of their best lenses
in focal lengths that fit my needs,  The Nikon will cost $6,632   and the
Leica $19,554 (Canadian dollars).   Now while some may say this is a small
price to pay but if you bought the Nikon with the extra money you could add
an extra Nikon F5 plus Nikon 'D' series body and still money left over.

Grant



From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What is so good about Leicas?
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002

...(quote above posting)

That's not quite the Manic One's point.  He's claiming that a F5 with a pro
zoom is about the same price an M6 with a single lens.  Say you put a
28-70/2.8 on the F5 and a 50/2.0 Summicron on the M6.  The package costs
are $2950 USD for the M6 and $3300 for the F5.

The fact that these two packages are vastly different in every other
respect goes without saying.

Paul


From: "Grant Dixon" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What is so good about Leicas?
Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 

...(quoting above)

In fact, Paul,  he never mentioned F5 or pro zoom or M6.

"Actually a Leica M with a lens will not cost much different from a high-end
Nikon or Canon with a nice zoom, so the difference in price isn't as great
as it might first appear, and all three cameras will produce similar
pictures."

Now you selected the M6 against the F5  that is Leica's second most costly
camera body against Nikons most costly  film SLR.  You also selected second
most costly Leica standard lens against Nikons most costly standard Zoom.
The M6 with a 50/2.0 Summicron would be more fairly compared to a Nikon F100
and a 3.5 -70 /2.8.  The price difference is almost $1600 in favour of the
Nikon. This is almost the cost of a second F100.

Now if you interested in producing "similar pictures" and want to get really
fair about it compare the mechanical  M6 with a 50/2.0 Summicron  with
mechanical  Nikon FM3A  with a 50/1.8.   Now you are closer to apples and
apples.

The simple fact is that Leicas are well engineered cameras that sell for a
premium.  They certainly are not over priced because the are being sold.
But  anyway you slice it they are very expensive cameras.



Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 
From: Gordon Moat [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What is so good about Leicas?


I think the expense is relative to what the market will bear, and what
other manufacturers charge for top of the line gear. A Nikon F5 costs
nearly as much as a Leica M6 or M7. The current top of the line Canon is
priced at a similar level. The quality of construction is very high for
these cameras, especially compared to lower priced, mostly plastic
cameras.

Another way to look at this is to realize that Leica does not really sell
entry level cameras. While they do have Point and Shoot cameras made for
them, these are more for revenue generation, than as a stepping stone to
higher priced gear.

If you are new to photography, an easier approach to this would be to
investigate SLR versus Rangefinder focusing methods. Due to a short lens
to film distance in a rangefinder, it is possible to design a wide angle
lens with very low distortion, with excellent image quality possible from
the rangefinder and wide angle combination. This is much more difficult
with SLR cameras. SLR cameras have an advantage over rangefinder cameras
with any lenses over 135 mm, since it is easier to focus long lenses
while looking through them. Another advantage of an SLR is in Macro
photography, which is nearly impossible with a rangefinder (despite
VisoFlex, and the Mamiya 7 close-up kit).

Rangefinder cameras are often physically smaller than SLR cameras, though
the Leica M6 and M7 are not that much smaller than a Nikon FM3a, for
example. They are mostly metal construction, so compared to an entry
level (mostly plastic) SLR, they are a bit heavier. The Leica lenses are
often slightly smaller than the same focal length lenses for SLR cameras.
This slightly smaller size can be an advantage, making them easier to
carry, though a mostly plastic entry level SLR has an advantage of
lightness of a Leica.

Another thing to think about is that medium format gear is nearly the
same price as Leica gear. This is another step up in quality, though you
loose the ease of 35 mm shooting, and convenience of easy to find film
and processing. There are medium format rangefinders (Bronica RF645,
several Fuji choices, and the Mamiya 7II (which also does 35 mm)), and
quite a few SLR choices. The 645 format is often the lightest, though the
6 by 6 format offers the most choices.

Another alternative is the Hasselblad Xpan, which uses 35 mm film to make
normal and panorama shots on the same roll. Slightly less expensive that
a new Leica, though fewer lens choices. It is also a rangefinder camera,
but with some modern automation. The panorama shots are nearly as wide as
those from a Mamiya 7, which is a much larger camera. Check
 for more on this.

I would suggest visiting a camera store that sells Leica. Try to pick up
and focus an M6 (or M7), and see if you like the way it handles. Compare
it to a 35 mm SLR, and think about which method of focusing you would
like to use. Ideally, buy one of each.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html



[Ed. note: a well deserved plug for Erwin Puts book on Leica lenses...]
From Leica Topica Mailing list:
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: RE: Erwin's book


 Tom Burke wrote:
>Erwin's book in fact contains a report on all Leica lenses ever made, I
>believe, from the very first Elmax f3.5 fixed lenses to the very latest
>(as at the end of last year). But that's only half of it. The first
>section of the book (amounting to about 100 of the total 230 or so
>pages) contains a 'historical and evolutionary perspective on the
>development of Leica lenses'; an introduction to 'the theory and
>practice of optical design', and and a section on Image Evaluation.
>
>{snip}
>But as I say, I like it.
>
>Tom Burke

Ditto!!!

Jim


From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 
From: Photo Phreak [email protected]
Subject: Re:   Erwin's book


> From: "Photo Phreak" [email protected]
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 
> Subject: Erwin's book
>
> > >
> >     I am curious if he puts changes in design theory in context
> with
> > the characteristics of the film available at the time.
>
> Not really. And he particularly takes issue with the idea that a
> particular
> lens is 'optimised for b&w', or kodachrome, etc - his approach is
> that
> reducing aberations is everything, and a lens with fewer, or
> better-controlled aberations, will produce better results with all
> films, of
> whatevever type (all other things being equal).
>
> Tom

  I will agree with that in most cases.  But there have been
several lenses with deliberately uncorrected ( or designed in )
spherical aberation for use as portrait lenses.

    Leica made one called the Thambar. ( Another name of mysterious
origin. )

    I know some have been made for large format studio cameras.  I do
not remember the manufacturer ( Rodenstock ? ), but I believe they
were called Imagons.

    Fuji made a version for their Fujica 35 mm. SLR camera line
during the mid to late '70s. I have one with Praktica/Pentax
screwmount. ( But do not try to put one on a Pentax.  The actuating
rod is longer and the lens will lock up on the camera.)

    This is another case where the least expensive way to use the
lens was to buy a used camera for it.



From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What is so good about Leicas?
Date: Mon, 20 May 2002
[email protected] (Jay1Bala) wrote:

>Which Leica lens, 35 mm and wider, that is considered the best ever even by
>Leica standards?

The new 28/2.0 Summicron ASPH is considered by many to be the very best
M-series wide angle made, optically speaking.  I share that opinion.

However, I consider their overall best wide angle to be the 35/1.4 Summilux
ASPH.  It's not quite as perfect optically as the 28/2.0 (by a typically
indistinguishable margin), but is a more manageable and generally useful
focal length, as well as being a stop faster.  If you poll Leica users
about the lens they would be least willing to part with, this one always
tops the list.  They'll have to pry mine from my cold, dead fingers (and
put it with me in my coffin afterwards).

Paul


From: Roger [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica is so overpriced.
Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2002 


Overpriced for whom? I've added a Nikon body and six E to E+ AIS
lenses to my kit for the price of a single Leica lens that I would
next like to have. In doing that I experimented with 5 different 50mm
lenses of various vintages and maximum apertures looking for one that
would come close to the qualities exhibited by my 50mm f1.4 Summilux
lens. None did and most have been sold. None of these lenses were bad
lenses. However, none of these lenses could create the photographic
separation of the subject from the background. In fact none of any of
the above Nikkor lenses can do pictorially what the Summilux can do.
To some this quality doesn't matter, especially at the price it
commands. For others it is a necessity. For me it is a luxury. But if
I needed that quality to provide a competitive or art edge to my
photography, so that I could make a living for instance, the price
might just be reasonable.

Better ask those questions without what seems like an attached
predisposition or judgement - perhaps they are overpriced to you. That
doesn't mean they are overpriced - they are still selling - unlike
some other things in this economy.

Regards,
Roger

"The real Yew" [email protected] wrote:

>Does anyone else think that Leica equipment is overpriced?




From: "Al Denelsbeck" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica is so overpriced.
Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2002


T.P. [email protected] wrote...
> "The real Yew" [email protected] wrote:
>
> >Does anyone else think that Leica equipment is overpriced?
>
> Yes.  The people who support that view include:
>
> - those who don't understand Leica
>
> - those who can't afford Leica
>
> - those whose ability is not enough to take advantage of Leica quality

    You forgot:
  - those who realize the camera is only a tool, and rely on skill and
effort to make good photos

    - those who have never seen enough quality differences in the end result
to justify even a 10% price increase, much less the average Leica price

    - those who couldn't care less what name is on the equipment, and
realize that they could have many more accessories and film for the cost of
one Leica


> [Next time you want to troll the newsgroup, please try a subject that
> is just slightly more original than this very old and tired one.]

    Doncha just love the people that blurt out "troll", then respond anyway?

    But even better, compare this thread to the one above above titled "Is
it the equipment or the photographer?" to see a complete reversal of
consensus. Isn't human nature fascinating?

    - Al.



From: "David Kieltyka" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Anybody try a Russian Leica knockoff?
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 200

[email protected] wrote:
> H-m-m-m-m-m, my Jupiter 8 50 mm f2 is a Biogon formula with
> 6 elements or more. My 35 mm is a distagon formula. They take
> exceptionally good pictures.

The Jupiter-8 is a Sonnar clone with six elements. The Soviet 35mm f/2.8 is
the Biogon clone. Both are fine lenses, though you have to watch out for
ill-fitting parts and poor assembly. Check out the following link for info
on close-range focusing problems with Soviet lenses on Leica cameras:

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html

-Dave-



From: "XSL" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Anybody try a Russian Leica knockoff?
Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2002


[email protected] wrote ...
>
>For quite a while, Russian made Leica copies were extremely
>common on ebay but seem to be less so now.
>
>Anybody buy and try one? Just curious as to whether they are
>decent picture takers. (And no, I don't for a minute think they
>would be anywhere near the picture takers real Leicas are.)
>
>--
>scribex

YES, they ARE beautiful picture takers. I've owned a FED-3 for more than 30
years. It is *not* a "Leica knockoff" but rather an independent
interpretation of the rangefinder technology. My FED-3 has a Russian-made
all-metal Jupiter-8 f2.0 lens. Even after 30 years, the camera looks and
works like new. And no, I haven't bought it on eBay. It didn't exist when my
Dad gave me the camera:)



From: KelsoLundeen [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica is so overpriced.   
Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 

"The real Yew"  wrote:

>Does anyone else think that Leica equipment is overpriced?

Actually, it's not. It's pretty reasonable.

In fact, I'm not sure why everybody gripes about the price of Leica. I
hear folks talking about buying $2000 Nikon digital cameras and $2000
Dell computers (for example).

But a good, user M6 or even a new M7 isn't that much more expensive.
In fact, a good user M6 TTL can be had these days for around $1000. M6
Classic slightly higher.

What's the big deal about dropping $1k on a Leica?          
And if the price of Leica lenses seems a bit high, go Voigtlander.

*shrug*

I've done quite well lately with my growing Leica collection, and it
hasn't broken my bank. In fact, once I got the body and a couple
lenses (a mix of CV and Leica and a couple old Jupiters for good
measure), I find myself spending *less* on photography these days. Of
course, I'm not buying Nikon stuff or Russian stuff anymore now that I
have my M6 :)

Kelso Lundeen
http://www.crabgrassfrontier.com   




From: "vrfmd" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens Quality--How Do You Rate It?
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002


Leica lenses are made in small quantities, of the best materials (metal),
held to high tolerances with little variation lens to lens, perfect
centering, etc. That is why their resale value is so good and why they are
expensive. I doubt that you could easily tell the difference in most cases
between the best Nikon, Canon, Pentax lenses in normal use. People are
willing to pay for the best, even if  the difference isn't obvious to most
people. Leica sells every lens they make so the market tells the story.
...


From: [email protected] (ArtKramr)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 22 Jul 2002 
Subject: Re: Lens Quality--How Do You Rate It?


>I would like to ask a Leitz designer why his/her lenses cost so much.  I
>really would be interested in hearing their response.

The answer he will give you is that how good a lens you put out depends on how
much you are willing to throw away.

Arthur Kramer
Visit my WW II B-26 website at:
http://www.coastcomp.com/artkramer


From leica mailing list:
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 
From: "Tim Atherton" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] [leica] Roger Hicks and the 21+35+90 combo?

+ price pays a factor - as always - determining results and usage. a 28/35 -
50 - 90 combination could be seen as very popular, because it's a darn sight
cheaper than anything with a 21/24/75 in it...

Same could be said for weight and bulk

tim


Date: Sat, 06 Jul 2002 
From: "Mxsmanic" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica is so overpriced.

"Paul Chefurka" [email protected] a �crit
> Oh, I've thanked them repeatedly :-)

I encountered someone on the street some weeks ago and immediately knew he
was a Leica owner just by the question he asked me.  He asked: "So, how many
M bodies do you own?"  Only a Leica owner would take for granted that
another person carrying a Leica had more than one body.  (Sure enough, he
had a Leica in his bag.)


From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica is so overpriced.
Date: Sun, 07 Jul 2002

[email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote:

>Why are Leica R lenses less renowned than the M rangefinder series? After
>all, some/most of the later M series lenses much praised are also
>retrofocus wide angle designs in order to clear the metering setup, right?
>Why are the retrofocus M lenses so much better than the retrofocus R
>lenses?

Most of the wide angles in the current M lineup are very recent designs,
incorporating Leica's current design thinking as well as aspheric elements
and modern glass.  At least some of the R wides are older designs - the
35/2.0 and 35/1.4 are the same vintage as the M lenses from one generation
ago, the 24/2.8 is a Minolta design that was indifferent when it was
launched.  The only two R wides that compare to the current M lineup are
the 28/2.8 which is the same design as the current M version, and the
19/2.8 which is a very recent design.


Leica's position on the retrofocus/symmetric issue is that with modern lens
design capabilities, symmetric formulae no longer offer any advantage and
can even limit the achievable correction.  Some of their current lenses
like the 28/2.0 Summicron-M are characterized as "hybrid" designs, sharing
some of the properties of each design philosophy.  They apparently feel
that with the use of exotic glasses, aspheric elements and sophisticated
design software, that the best approach is to take the design from the
ground up.  Obviously this is easier to do with the M, since the only real
constraint is that the rear element must clear the reflective path to the
meter cell.  This is a much looser constraint than clearing a mirror in an
SLR, so they have more freedom in the designs.

Erwin Puts has a comment on this in his review of the 28/2.0 Summicron-M at
http://www.imx.nl/photosite/leica/mseries/testm/m2-28.html

Paul


From: [email protected] (McEowen)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: 07 Jul 2002 
Subject: Re: Leica is so overpriced.

I was wondering what you see are the "operating advantages of a Leica" that
other rangefinders don't share.

First, let me say that a Leica M has few if any operating advantages over the
other "old school" rangefinders -- i.e. the Contax, Canon and Nikon
rangefinders of the 1950s and 60s. They;re all very similar cameras with
similar attributes, though the Leica has been modernized a bit in the past 40
years. Certainly the lenses have improved.

As for the modern offerings:

The Bessa -R: The main limitation is the cumbersome screw mount. Also, the
Leica has much better ergonomics, fit and finish. There is something to be said
for photograher/equipment "interface"

The Bessa-T: The fact that the viewfinder is separate from the rangefinder is
an obvious disadvantage. Also the fit and finish/ergonomics issue applies here
as well.

The Konica RF: I consider this a worthy alternative, assuming you don't need a
high magnification viewfinder.

The Contax G: THis is really a different animal due to it's electronics-based
"rangefinder." It does not allow zone focus techniques with the same ease that
a truly manual focus camera does. It has a limited lens range -- at least in
terms of maximum aperture. In the ultra-critical task of focusing in low light
the Leica holds the edge. It's noisy compared to the Leica -- not so much the
shutter noise but rather the noise of the focusing mechanism (especially if
you do a lot of recomposing and refocusing). THe zooming viewfinder does not
give the same clear, window-like view that a Leica does. Don't get me wrong I
like the Contax G as a general purpose snapshot/travel photography camera but
it's just not well suited for documentary style photography where you watch and
wait for moments under low light conditions.

Also, you should not that my comments about the Contax G are not just Contax
bashing on the part of a Leica owner. I bought a G2 and three lenses to try it
out. I shot a few stories for my work with it and felt like a gave it a good
workout. I eventually sold it because I didn't feel if met my needs
particularly well. For other applications, though, I think it's a pretty neat
camera.



From leica mailing list:
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 2002 
From: "David H. Enzel" [email protected]
Subject: RE: cover letter to Leica repair: newer is not always better

Mark,

I am sure Leica will take care of you but I understand your disappointment,
given the price of the M7.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Bohrer [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Sunday, July 07, 2002 
To: [email protected]
Subject: cover letter to Leica repair: newer is not always better

Gentlemen:

         Enclosed is Leica M7, serial number 2778421, with two DL1/3N
Li-Ion batteries and body cap. Film advance is inoperative (jammed),
shutter button depresses/shutter released, and no LED indications of any
kind appear when the camera is switched on. Both batteries worked fine in
an M6 TTL, and both measured over 3V unloaded with a voltmeter. I purchased
the M7 from B & H Photo on June 19, 2002, and have enclosed a photocopy of
the receipt. I'd appreciate it if you'd restore it to good working order.

         It escapes me how a newly-purchased Leica can die after less than
5 rolls of film have gone through it. I have a 48-year-old M3 I've used
since 1968 (my grandfather bought it in 1954) and a 3-year-old M6 TTL 0.85
that have been absolutely reliable. Nikon N90 and F5 cameras I use for pro
mountain bike races I cover, and an older Canon F1N have all been very
reliable for many years after purchase. If the M7 hadn't been such an
expensive item, I might have thrown what was effectively a $2350
paperweight over a cliff after it died on location in the eastern Sierras.
It's especially frustrating that I sold a very reliable M6 Classic, older
35mm Summicron and latest 50mm Summicron to buy it.

         I had planned to use the M7 in a concert shoot on July 12, but
simply hope to have it back from you in time for another concert August 2.


Mark Bohrer
www.kokophoto.com
Pro mountain bike racing on the web


From: Paul Chefurka [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica is so overpriced.
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002

 [email protected] (Robert Monaghan) wrote:

>The flip side of
>your note would seem to be that the current retrofocus SLR lenses could be
>made to whatever performance standard desired, but are limited more by
>cost constraints than fundamental lens design issues (i.e., retrofocus vs.
>symmetrical designs)...

I think that's generally true.  Certainly Leica has produced some
exceptional recent designs for the R (Like the 180/2.8, the 180/2.0 and
even the new 50/1.4) but as you note, they had to relax cost constraints to
do so.  Being Leica, that decision was perhaps easier for them to make :-)

Paul


From: [email protected] (Paul Farrar)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Leica is so overpriced.
Date: 8 Jul 2002 


Robert Monaghan  wrote:
...
>
>Why are Leica R lenses less renowned than the M rangefinder series? After
>all, some/most of the later M series lenses much praised are also
>retrofocus wide angle designs in order to clear the metering setup, right?

They are only very slightly retrofocal, if at all, except for the 21.
If you look at the cross sections, they are symmetric designs.
Symmetric designs do have to be somewhat assymetric anyway because
the object distance is so much greater than the film distance (except
of course for copy lenses). Leica supposedly made the rear group more
positive than the front in the newer wide angles to clear the meter
cells, but it sure isn't readily noticeable in the cross sections,
except for the 21mm. The aspherics have a neutral aspheric corrector
right behind the diaphragm.

The R wide angle lenses, in contrast, are heavily reverse telephoto,
with designs that look like other manufacturers' SLR lenses (well
some of them are other manufacturers' SLR lenses). But R lenses have
to clear a flapping mirror, not a meter cell that's a couple of cm
from the film. The only common lens I know of, other than old long
telephotos, is the 90/2.8, which is a Sonnar type design, which has
the clearance needed for an SLR. The M and R 90/2.8s, although
supposedly the same optically, have a significant price
differential.

Paul Farrar
>Why are the retrofocus M lenses so much better than the retrofocus R
>lenses?
>
>thanks for your insights! ;-) bobm
...


From leica mailing list:
Date: Mon, 08 Jul 2002
From: "Victor Wek" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] M7 test in Popular Photography

The July 2002 issue of Popular Photography has few pages long test of M7
and 28/2 lens.

There is many interesting technical details about camera construction and
some comparison to M6.

28mm lens has the best resolving power at f5.6  107 lines per mm in the
centre.

The magazine test has more details then:
http://www.popphoto.com/Camera/ArticleDisplay.asp?ArticleID=182

Victor


From: T. P. [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cheap, used 90mm M-mount?
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2002

[email protected] wrote:
>T. P. [email protected] wrote:
>
>> Look on eBay or in secondhand camera shops for a used
>> Konica 90mm from the Hexar RF series.
>
>> From Leica, the Elmar C 90mm f/4 is a nice lens.  It
>> should be available in 'user' condition for $200-$300.
>
>Thanks, Tony....$200-300 is exactly the amount I had in
>mind. What about the Rokkor (made in Germany) 90mm f/4
>for the CL series? Is that a decent lens?


The Rokkors are something of an enigma.

Leica (in those days Leitz) would have liked you to think that the
Rokkors were made by Minolta.  However, the 40mm f/2 and 90mm f/4
Rokkors were made by Leitz at Wetzlar and merely branded Minolta.

The 28mm Rokkor was made in Japan by Minolta with their CLE model very
much in mind.  The CLE had aperture priority AE, rangefinder focusing,
interchangeable lenses with the Leica M mount, and viewfinder frames
for all three focal lengths.

The Leica CL was only loosely related to the Minolta CLE.  No 28mm
lens was ever offered for the CL and viewfinder frames were provided
only for the 40mm, 50mm and 90mm lenses (if I recall correctly).


Later in the CL program, there was a Minolta CL which was almost
identical to the Leica version.  This was offered because sales of the
Leica CL were well below the numbers contracted from Minolta by Leitz,
and Leitz needed to allow Minolta dealers to sell what Leitz dealers
could not in the post-1973 oil crisis.

All the lenses for the CL/CLE show a particular weakness for fungal
growth, either through a poor choice of materials or (more likely) an
inability of the "new" Leica buyers - at whom the "low-cost" Compact
Leica was aimed - to care for the equipment as "real" Leica owners
would.  You need to take a careful look for fungus, particularly if it
has affected the balsam used to cement doublets together.

The balsam is made from some rendered down animal product that is
probably too gross to be mentioned here (!).  It is particularly
susceptible to moisture and fungal attack.  Look for any yellowing of
the balsam, which starts at the edge and rapidly progresses across the
whole diameter of the affected elements.

In its advanced stages the fungus draws any residual moisture out of
the balsam which begins to crack and craze.  As soon as yellowing or
cracking of the balsam is apparent, you can be sure that the cost of
repair will greatly exceed that of a replacement used lens.  Both 40mm
and 90mm Leitz and Rokkor lenses and the 28mm Rokkor are affected.

The good news is that, if you get a good lens and take good care of it
in dry storage and use, it will probably last you a lifetime of use.

Here in the wet and humid UK, it is very difficult to find good used
lenses for the CL/CLE, but careful buying from the more arid states of
the USA should pay great dividends.   Always buy from a seller or
dealer with a stated returns policy; if in doubt, DO NOT BUY!!


(sorry for the shouting!)

More good news:  all the lenses are very good indeed and they all
exhibit optical qualities that make Leica lenses so desirable. The
price I mentioned is for a 'user' (well used) lens with poor cosmetics
and signs of mechanical wear but good optics.  You should expect to
pay more for the 40mm lenses and more again for the 28mm Rokkor, which
is a real delight if obtained free of fungus.

HTH.



From: [email protected] (Winfried Buechsenschuetz)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Cheap, used 90mm M-mount?
Date: 23 Jul 2002



T. P. [email protected] wrote...
> The balsam is made from some rendered down animal product that is
> probably too gross to be mentioned here (!).

Older lenses were cemented with canadian balm, a stuff produced by
canadian pines. It has a refraction index very similar to that of
common optical glass. It was also used in microscopy for embedding
objects.

Newer lenses (from the mid-60s and later) are cemented with a
synthetic glue which is hardened with UV radiation. It is anorganic
and therefore much less affected by fungus than the organic canadian
balm.

Winfried


From: "doughnut" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: What's the best 35mm SLR of all time?
Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002


Minolta XD11.  A Leica R4 (R5, R6, R7) on a budget.

"Bill Karoly" [email protected] wrote 
> Any opinions?
>
> Bill



[Ed. note: the latest Popular Photography has a blurb on the lens registration distances
between Leica M and the various Bessa... clone lenses - there are some differences which
need to be considered and taken into account by adjustment of some lenses or bodies...]
From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rangefinder camera article

 Kotsinadelis, Peter (Peter) at [email protected] wrote:

> BTW, you do not point out the 1.2 mm difference in the film to lens
> distances for Leica v. Konica.
> Your comments on that on this list were proven true in this month's Pop
> Photo where they measures the distance on the Hexar, Leica-M, and
> Voigtlander.  The Hexar RF was the only one of the 3 that was out by 1.2mm
> which would make for an out of focus picture if you were using a Leica 50mm
> or longer focal length (or so it was said). Wide angles the difference does
> not easily produce soft focus especially when stopped down.
> Why on earth would Konica built a better M6 (or even an M7) and shot
> themselves with this small difference?
> Peter K
>


That article wasn't the place to go into that.

Yes, it was gratifying to see Pop confirm what I already knew to be true.
But I had my Hexar adjusted and it produces great photos with Leica lenses
now.

Bob



From rollei mailing list:
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 2002 
From: "John A. Lind" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Rangefinder camera article

 Peter Kostinadelis wrote:

>BTW, you do not point out the 1.2 mm difference in the film to lens
>distances for Leica v. Konica.
>Your comments on that on this list were proven true in this month's Pop
>Photo where they measures the distance on the Hexar, Leica-M, and
>Voigtlander.  The Hexar RF was the only one of the 3 that was out by 1.2mm
>which would make for an out of focus picture if you were using a Leica
>50mm or longer focal length (or so it was said). Wide angles the
>difference does not easily produce soft focus especially when stopped down.
>
>Why on earth would Konica built a better M6 (or even an M7) and shot
>themselves with this small difference?
>
>Peter K

Peter,
Looking at it from a Konica business perspective, why build a camera that
can easily use someone else's lenses if Konica feels it isn't an essential
feature to sell its cameras?

There may be some other technical considerations in camera body
design.  Not having seen the original postings about it, or mechanically
analyzed either camera, this is my first thought.  Camera makers are "for
profit" businesses and therefore wish to maximize total operating income
from their revenue (this is a balancing act between pricing, total revenue
and profit from that revenue).

On other parts of the article Bob Shell wrote . . .
Was interesting to read about Bob using Kiev's "Contax II clone" RF.  I
have a ZI Contax IIIa and use it regularly although it's not the primary
camera.

Requires a different mode of visualizing and working with its mechanicals
compared to an SLR, 35mm or MF, but once one becomes accustomed to it,
using one can be enjoyable and rewarding, not to mention the image
qualities it's capable of producing.

-- John


From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 
From: "Dave" [email protected]
Subject: Lens test: mf Minolta lenses vs Leitz lenses

Well, I have gone and done it.  The test of what I think are the finest of
the mf Minolta lenses against the test of Leica R systems lenses  of similar
focal lengths.  First off let me say that there were a few surprizes in my
results and the tests were repeated to eliminate human error as best as
possible.  I have not tested all the lenses in their systems, only the ones
I personally own or could borrow.  All the lenses tested have perfect
unmarked lens elements with no scratches, cleaning marks ( which is the ebay
term for scratches) ;-) fog, haze or fungus.  All lenses were very carefully
cleaned prior to test and all lenses had lens hoods mounted during the
shooting.

  The lenses tested are as follows:

35mm MC W. Rokkor f/1.8
35mm Leitz Elmarit-R f/2.8
50mm MC Rokkor-X f/1.4 late version
50mm Leitz Summicron-R f/2 last version
60mm Leitz Elmarit-R Macro f/2.8
85mm MC Rokkor f/1.7 with chrome aperture ring
90mm Leitz Summicron f/2 late version
90mm Leitz Elmarit-R f/2.8 last version
135mm MD Rokkor-X f/2.8 4 element version with rubber grip and all metal
construction
135mm Leitz Elmarit-R f/2.8 last version
180mm Leitz APO Telyt-R f/3.4

First in the 35 mm catagory.  No contest, Leitz wins at all f stops

In the 50mm catagory.  Minolta MC Rokkor-X wins very handily.  In all
apertures, the Rokkor beat the Leitz lens hands down.  This was a very big
surprize for me.  The Leitz Summicron 50 is a very respected lens and rates
a very high number from Photodo. This MC Rokkor is a real winner!  Hats off
to the Mind of Minolta.  I tested the 60mm Leitz Elmarit-R just for fun and
it was an incredible lens beating even the Minolta MC 50 at comparible
apertures.  Even wide open at f/2.8 it beat the MC Rokkor-X at f/2.8.  But
you have have to compare them at 50x magnification to really see the
difference.  At 10x you cannot tell the story.

In the 85 and 90 catagory.  Number one in performance is the Leitz 90mm
Elmarit-R with a close second to the Leitz Summicron 90mm.  Minolta had a
third place showing here with the MC-Rokkor f/1.7.  The Leitz 90mm Elmarit-R
is a fantastic lens and not a surprize here that it beat all comers.

In the 135mm catagory.  Here another surprize for me.  The Leitz 135mm
Elmarit-R late version beat my favorite 135mm Minolta MD-Rokkor-X but only
wide open and f/4.  By f/5.6 the MC Rokkor almost caught up and only at 100x
magnification could you see any real difference.  The Leitz 135 was much
sharper than I had imagined and it had a warmer color cast as well.  Bokeh
with the Leitz 135mm is superb but that sucker is heavy and not one I would
like to lug around too much or too far.  The MD Rokkor-X 4 element  is still
a very sweet lens and still one of my favorites.

Again for fun, I shot the Leitz 180mm APO Telyt-R f/3.4 and have to say it
lives up to it's reputation.  This lens was designed and built in the ELC
plant in Canada for the US Navy as a special recon lens and it is amazing.
It is very sharp wide open and doesn't show any appreciable improvement with
stopping down.  I have not yet shot the MC Rokkor 200mm f/3.5 lens against
it but when I do, I will let you know.

In conclusion, the Minolta lenses faired very well against what is
considered to be the best in the world.  In one case, the 50mm, it even won.
I would love to test the new Leitz 50mm Summilux f/1.4 which is supposed to
easily win against the Summicron but I don't have a spare $2000 in my
pocket.  Which brings up my whole point of this comparison.  There is no
better value in camera lenses than the superb Minolta lenses.  They perform
along with the best at prices that are unbeatable.  Minota owners hold your
heads high when that Nikon or Canon owner looks at your equipment with
disdain.  We know better.

Dave Saalsaa




From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 
From: David Kilpatrick [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lens test: mf Minolta lenses vs Leitz lenses


Dave wrote:

> Well, I have gone and done it.  The test of what I think are the finest of
> the mf Minolta lenses against the test of Leica R systems lenses  of similar
> focal lengths.

Great test. A little unfair in some ways - though the 35mm f1.8 minolta
is a classic lens, perhaps the 35mm f2.8 might actually have done better
against the Leitz 35mm f2.8; same even at 50mm, the 50mm f2 MC Rokkor
(of that certain exact vintage, SRT 100 issue) was in my tests at the
time even better than the 1.4, and similarly beat the Leitz 50mm f2.

Obviously you can't compare exact like for like without huge resources.

Another interesting test which would definitely favour Minolta would be
the original 21mm f2.8 MC Rokkor against the 19mm f2.8 Elmarit-R or the
21mm Super Angulon R - I compared large prints with a Leica photographer
called Tony Marshall when these lenses were current, and the Minolta was
so far superior to the Leitz/Schneider lenses is was surprising.

David


From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 
From: "Dave" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lens test: mf Minolta lenses vs Leitz lenses

When I shot my tests, using my favorite spot which is a car dealerships
storefront which has various signs and lettering of all sizes plastered
across most of his building, I would turn my camera (on tripod of course)
toward the cars in the lot to do the bokeh tests.  The depth of rows of cars
gave me forground and background bokeh when I focus in the middle of the
cars. The cars shining chrome gave off good specular highlights and allowed
me to judge bokeh.  My lens tests are not very scientific, but, I used the
same subject for all of the tests and it gave me a chance to compare various
lenses redition of color, sharpness and bokeh of the same subject.  Both the
Minolta and Leitz lenses were very consistant in color except for two lenses
of the pack.  The Minolta MC Rokkor 50mm f/3.5 macro which was cooler in
color rendition than the rest and the Leitz 135mm Elmarit-R which was a bit
warmer.  Those of you who have read my previous test results of the Minolta
50mm MC and MD macros on the other list (Minolta Manual) may remember that
the optical performance of the 50mm MC and MD macro lenses was identical
except for the color rendition. The MC version again being a bit cooler in
color.  The biggest difference I can see between the Minolta lenses and the
Leitz lenses is that the Leitz lenses, in general, perform better wide open
than the Minolta lenses do. They are designed that way and often used that
way by Leica photographers to separate the subject from the background.  The
Minolta lenses in my test group all performed best when stopped down two
stops from wide open which is the norm for most lenses. No big surprize
here.  I was very pleased with the performance of the Minolta lenses and now
wonder how the newer AF lenses compare.  If anyone in the Wisconsin area
wants to stop over and do the controlled comparison test of their AF lenses
you are very welcome.

Dave Saalsaa


From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 
From: "Dave" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Lens test: mf Minolta lenses vs Leitz lenses

Something else I wanted to say earlier but forgot, is my tests are only with
one or two of the same lenses so you have to remember that some sample
variation can occur within the same lens model.  My particular sample of a
lens may not be the same as the norm for this lens.  I think the chances of
this are somewhat reduced because of the excellent reputation of both
Minolta and Leica assembly quality.  But still these tests are only of my
lenses and your milage may vary.

I still have a few lenses to test such as the MC Rokkor 200mm f/3.5 ( I have
an older and newer version) and the 24mm lenses by Minolta and Leitz.  Same
optical formula and in both cases, the lens elements manufactured by
Minolta.  We'll see if the Leitz version really is any better as is claimed
by some.  In closing, keep in mind that my tests were done with a very solid
tripod and cable release under ideal conditions.  Hand held, you probably
couldn't tell much difference between these lenses.  In fact in some cases I
had to use quite high power magnification to see the differences with the
shots taken with tripod.

Dave Saalsaa


From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 
From: "Kent Gittings" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Re: Lens test: mf Minolta lenses vs Leitz lenses

Slightly off. The MTF graph of a lens can give you sharpness, resolution and
contrast but not color or Bokeh. If you read the actual graphs you can get
contrast info off the charts. The rest is mostly resolution numbers on and
off axis.

However the tests don't tell the entire story. Especially on some lenses. A
lot of non-Pentax shooters like the Pentax FA* 80-200/2.8 over the brand
they currently shoot (a lot of pros I know have this opinion). Yet it always
has the worst photodo of all the PJ lenses and even some other magazine
tests rate it the lowest. Some Pentax shooters got photodo to test a second
sample of the lens also with similar results. But when you actually shoot
film through it the results are outstanding.

So even though I use photodo heavily when considering a prospective lens (if
they have ever tested it) I also listen and look at what it has actually
done in print and what the opinions of shooters are on the Photozone.

Kent Gittings


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 
To: [email protected]
From: Marc James Small [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Re: Rangefinder adjustment

 Paul Shinkawa wrote:
>I may be oversimplifying, but I understand the gist of
>Dante Stella's argument to be that because of the
>0.7mm difference between lenses designed by Leitz for
>Leitz cameras and Russian lenses designed for Russian
>LTM cameras that Russian lenses will never match
>precisely throughout their entire focusing range with
>a Leitz rangefinder (and vice versa).

Paul

This simply isn't true.  Both Leitz TM cameras and their cameras and lenses
are made to identical back-focus dimensions.  I have shot with dozens of
Russian lenses on my LTM cameras and I've never had one which was not
properly registered.

Marc
[email protected] 


From manual minolta mailing list:
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002
From: "Dave" [email protected]
Subject: More lens tests

Well, I have gone and done it.  The test of what I think are the finest of
the mf Minolta lenses against the test of Leica R systems lenses  of similar
focal lengths.  First off let me say that there were a few surprizes in my
results and the tests were repeated to eliminate human error as best as
possible.  I have not tested all the lenses in their systems, only the ones
I personally own or could borrow.  All the lenses tested have perfect
unmarked lens elements with no scratches, cleaning marks ( which is the ebay
term for scratches) ;-) fog, haze or fungus.  All lenses were very carefully
cleaned prior to test and all lenses had lens hoods mounted during the
shooting.

  The lenses tested are as follows:

35mm MC W. Rokkor f/1.8
35mm Leitz Elmarit-R f/2.8
50mm MC Rokkor-X f/1.4 late version
50mm Leitz Summicron-R f/2 last version
60mm Leitz Elmarit-R Macro f/2.8
85mm MC Rokkor f/1.7 with chrome aperture ring
90mm Leitz Summicron f/2 late version
90mm Leitz Elmarit-R f/2.8 last version
135mm MD Rokkor-X f/2.8 4 element version with rubber grip and all metal
construction
135mm Leitz Elmarit-R f/2.8 last version
180mm Leitz APO Telyt-R f/3.4

First in the 35 mm catagory.  No contest, Leitz wins at all f stops

In the 50mm catagory.  Minolta MC Rokkor-X wins very handily.  In all
apertures, the Rokkor beat the Leitz lens hands down.  This was a very big
surprize for me.  The Leitz Summicron 50 is a very respected lens and rates
a very high number from Photodo. This MC Rokkor is a real winner!  Hats off
to the Mind of Minolta.  I tested the 60mm Leitz Elmarit-R just for fun and
it was an incredible lens beating even the Minolta MC 50 at comparible
apertures.  Even wide open at f/2.8 it beat the MC Rokkor-X at f/2.8.  But
you have have to compare them at 50x magnification to really see the
difference.  At 10x you cannot tell the story.

In the 85 and 90 catagory.  Number one in performance is the Leitz 90mm
Elmarit-R with a close second to the Leitz Summicron 90mm.  Minolta had a
third place showing here with the MC-Rokkor f/1.7.  The Leitz 90mm Elmarit-R
is a fantastic lens and not a surprize here that it beat all comers.

In the 135mm catagory.  Here another surprize for me.  The Leitz 135mm
Elmarit-R late version beat my favorite 135mm Minolta MD-Rokkor-X but only
wide open and f/4.  By f/5.6 the MC Rokkor almost caught up and only at 100x
magnification could you see any real difference.  The Leitz 135 was much
sharper than I had imagined and it had a warmer color cast as well.  Bokeh
with the Leitz 135mm is superb but that sucker is heavy and not one I would
like to lug around too much or too far.  The MD Rokkor-X 4 element  is still
a very sweet lens and still one of my favorites.

Again for fun, I shot the Leitz 180mm APO Telyt-R f/3.4 and have to say it
lives up to it's reputation.  This lens was designed and built in the ELC
plant in Canada for the US Navy as a special recon lens and it is amazing.
It is very sharp wide open and doesn't show any appreciable improvement with
stopping down.  I have not yet shot the MC Rokkor 200mm f/3.5 lens against
it but when I do, I will let you know.

In conclusion, the Minolta lenses faired very well against what is
considered to be the best in the world.  In one case, the 50mm, it even won.
I would love to test the new Leitz 50mm Summilux f/1.4 which is supposed to
easily win against the Summicron but I don't have a spare $2000 in my
pocket.  Which brings up my whole point of this comparison.  There is no
better value in camera lenses than the superb Minolta lenses.  They perform
along with the best at prices that are unbeatable.  Minota owners hold your
heads high when that Nikon or Canon owner looks at your equipment with
disdain.  We know better.

Dave Saalsaa



From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Sun, 01 Sep 2002 
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Russian Leica-M lenses
From: Bob Shell [email protected]

 Michael Lee at [email protected] wrote:
> Yes, M-mount lenses by Fed.
>
> See Ebay #1377565623
>
> Mike,
> Melbourne, Australia
>


Either this same set or another just like it was on eBay some time ago and
did not sell.  As I understand it, these were only made as "concept
prototypes" and may not function properly.

Bob


From: "doughnut" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Affordable alternatives to Leica
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002

"Eirik Kj�lsrud" [email protected] wrote

> Hi.
>
> First of all, I'm new to this group, so if this is a question that has
> already been covered in FAQ's or similar, please guide me to it.
>
> I'm an amateur photographer that currently uses an old Nikon FG camera with
> assorted lenses. It's an ok camera, but it is old and worn down with some
> vital functions not working anymore. I certainly like the old cameras, in
> both look and feel, and as far as I know, the pearl among old manual cameras
> is Leica. Now, looking at the prices of these kindof discourages me from
> replacing my not-fully-functional Nikon with a Leica, so I was wondering
> whether there might be any good alternatives in the top section of manual
> 35mms available at a more affordable price ?
>
> What I am looking for is a manual camera with as much control possibilities
> as possible, good and more importantly solid construction, a good range of
> quality lenses and a proper viewfinder. Any recommendations ?



You'll probably be better off just finding a good used Nikon to replace your
FG. However, if you really feel the need to switch to something that will give you
that Leica feel on a budget, try to find a used Minolta XD11 (aka XD, XD7).
This camera body was used by Leica as the basis for it's R4, R5, R6, and R7
cameras.  It's also used in other Minolta models like the XD5, XD-s, and several
of the XG series models.  See http://members.aol.com/manualminolta/minslr.htm
for a good survey of the old Minoltas.


From: [email protected] (Roman)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Affordable alternatives to Leica
Date: 6 Sep 2002 


Hi,
like a few other posters I would recommend that you stick with one of
the quality manual Nikon SLR bodies - but for very little money you
could get a rangefinder system as well - to try out whether these
cameras really suit your style of shooting e. g. street-photography. I
personally have a Pentax SLR system (for colour photography), a
Pentacon Six medium format SLR system (for B&W work) and a cheap
Russian M39-mount rangefinder for B&W low-light and street-style
shooting. This may not be the best and most reliable rangefinder
system in the world, but it is a very inexpensive way to try out
rangefinder style photography - and you can still upgrade to a Leica
if this type of camera suits you. I personally use a Russian Zorki 6 -
limited range of speeds (1/30 to 1/500), but sufficient for available
light, and much smoother than the more popular Zorki 4, and M39 mount
Russian Jupiter 35mm & 50mm lenses (which are very good for B&W work).
There also is a Jupiter 85mm lens - I have it in M42-mount for my
SLRs, but it is not on par with my Pentax glass (though it has a
quaint old-fashioned charm). With the Zorki system you could lateron
upgrade to M39 mount Leica cameras and use the Zorkis as backup - or
get an M-mount Leica and use the Jupiter lenses with M39 to M -
adapter until you can afford a full set of  Leica glass.
There are other inexpensive Russian rangefinders as well (Kiev - with
Contax mount, FED with M39-mount), but I don't have personal
experience with those.

BOTTOM LINE: If you are not sure whether rangefinders really suite
you, try them out with an inexpensive Zorki-system first - if you like
them, upgrade to Leica (or Voigtl�nder or Konica Hexar or vintage
Contax), if you don't, get a nice manual Nikon SLR and use your Zorki
when you need a silent, inconspicuous camera for available light
photography. Get a Zorki 6 (or 4 or 5, or FED 5 or 4) with Jupiter
35mm, 50mm (and mybe 85mm) lenses and try it out before you spend big
bucks on a fine Leica which may not suite your shooting style!

Roman



From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 
From: "Dave" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] rangefinder lens in same league as Leica R4 lenses?


Hi Simon,

    Being a user of both the Leica R and M systems, I can tell you that
there are similarities between the two lens systems as some of the optical
formulas are shared between the two Leica systems.  The late production 50mm
Summicron lenses share the same optical formula, for example, and in my
tests and those generally accepted by many, the 50mm Summicron M is has
slightly better performace than the R version.   A rangefinder lens has
fewer restrictions in it's design and it is generally easier to produce an
rf lens with better performance.  That being said,  the late version Leitz M
lenses are quite good performers.  The favorite lenses in my Leica M kit are
the 35mm Summicron pre-asph, the last version 50mm Summicron, the 50mm
Summicron DR, the 90mm Elmarit M and the 135mm Tele-Elmar.  These lenses
give excellent results and I again I dare say out perform  the R versions.

Dave Saalsaa
...


Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 
From: Michael Frangos [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Russian Lenses - Rangefinder and 35mm SLR

Bob

I was reading your interesting article about these lenses where you have stated
that "The Russian 35mm SLR and rangefinders have vastly different lens
registration distances, but may use similar (Leica) screw thread lens mount
threads. So the lenses may fit, but they won't work properly if they are on the
wrong camera. The Leica (Fed..) and Contax (Kiev) lenses are not
interchangeable"

You may want to revise this statement. Here's a photographer who has used a
Jupiter-8 on a Fed-2 camera: http://fantastic-camera.com/gibutsu_01.htm. The
pictures are rather small to draw any serious conclusions but they do look
sharp enough to me. Of course it would be silly to expect results on par with
or even close to those achieved with Japanese or European lenses of the same
period.

best regards
Michael Frangos



From rollei mailing list:
Date: Fri, 06 Sep 2002 
From: scott lanes [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Rollei] Re: 120mm v. 150mm lens

Actually i have owned Wetzlar lenses and Canada lenses and although image
quality seems to be the same the construction of the Wetzlar lenses seems
to be much better.

-scott

 you wrote:
>Same with Leica and the Canada made lenses.  It seems to be simply a mental
>game more so than anything based on reality.
>
>Austin


From: [email protected] (Gordon Gekko)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: My Journey Into Leica Land
Date: 11 Sep 2002


"Canon" [email protected] wrote
> I sold the whole Leica system at a small profit and bought a Canon Elan 7e
> and 50mm F/1.4 for half the price and haven't looked back since!
> What an incredible bargain!! ....the Canon NOT the Leica....

How's that Eye Control working out for you?

According to Photodo, all the 50mm prime lenses from all the
manufacturers have Leica-like high MTF ratings.

If one wants to take sharp pictures at 50mm focal length, one needn't
spend much more than $200 for brand new equipment.


From: [email protected] (Razondetre)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Date: 04 Sep 2002 
Subject: Re: chinese M39 lenses for med fmt Re: russians out of prod'n?


>From: [email protected]  (Robert Monaghan)
>as an aside, there are some Med Fmt M39 lenses out there from china too:
>I doubt many leicaphiles
>will be snatching these up ;-)
>grins bobm

Did you know the lens from the old Perfex 35mm cameras will fit a Leica but not
the other way around?

RDE.



From leica mailing list:
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 
From: John Collier [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] finder flare

Take your M2 and one of your M6TTLs and try the following. Look thought
the center of the finder, as you normally do, and then slowly let your
eye go off-center to one side. The M2's super-imposed image will shift
slightly, grow dim and finally go white starting at one edge. This
requires a good deal of movement by the eye relative to the finder so in
practice you do not notice it. The M6TTL's super-imposed will shift
slightly, dim and go white all at the same time. It takes very little
eye movement for this to happen so you notice it frequently.

It really annoyed the h*** out of me at first but I have become used to
it now. When it happens I just center my eye again and it disappears. It
is all second nature now such that I do not even notice it happening.
There is another finder flare that is induced by a strong oblique light
hitting the viewfinder. This causes the finder patch to white out and
eye centering will not get it to reappear. All M cameras suffer from
this equally.

The M7 with its coated windows is better than the M6TTL but not as good
as the M2. It is a good compromise though and, if Leica does not soon
announce its long awaited fix for the finder flare, I will get the M7
windows fitted to my two M6TTLs.

John Collier

Steve LeHuray wrote:

> I have been wondering about the dreaded M flare for several years now,
> wondering because flare has never occured with any of my Ms (2 M2s, M3, 2
> M6TTLs). Many others have also have no flare problems. Could it have
> something to do with the difference in peoples eyes? Could it be there is a
> correct and incorrect way to look through the viewfinder?



From leica mailing list:
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 
From: "Steve LeHuray" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] finder flare

> Take your M2 and one of your M6TTLs and try the following. Look thought
> the center of the finder, as you normally do, and then slowly let your
> eye go off-center to one side. The M2's super-imposed image will shift
> slightly, grow dim and finally go white starting at one edge.

OK. Just pulled an M2 out of the *always-ready-to-go-bag* and tried your
suggestion. Moved my eye to the left so that the top plate started to
encroach into the viewdinder. No change at all in the rangefinder patch all
the way up to disapearing behind the top plate.

 Tried the M3 and the patch disappears. That is interesting. I must be very
good at keeping my eye centered on the patch because never saw that happen
before with the M3.

BTW, both my M2s have the M4P rangefinder installed.

Will try the M6TTLs later.

I guess I should feel lucky that this is not a problem for me.

sl


From leica mailing list:
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002
From: S Dimitrov [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: .85x  now flare in the viewfinder


The flare in the M6 is much more insidious than a simple moving of the
eye can cure. In my case, where I tend to use the camera in situations
with strong sidelight, and light coming at the camera, it has made my M6
virtually unusable. And this is in commercial usage, not just hobby
shooting. I have been using my M4-2 more often because of that patch
flare.

Slobodan Dimitrov


From leica mailing list:
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 
From: "B. D. Colen" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: .85x  and 75-135mm

Or it could be that some people are either, a. So taken with the Red Dot
that they can't bring themselves to acknowledge that there is a problem with
rangefinder flare, or b. Some people take the rangefinder flare problem for
granted, and therefore don't think of it as a problem.

But it is possible, Steve, that you and about a half-a-dozen other people
who say they have never experienced M6 rangefinder flare have the handful of
cameras that were dropped, kicked, or otherwise somehow jiggered to
eliminate the problem.:-)

I'd point out that even Leica has finally acknowledged the problem, and
announced a while back that they would be making a fix in the M7 to reduce
the rangefinder flare which  is a fact of life in the M6 and original M7s.
In fact, it was even noted that they could retrofit the fix into M6TTLs, but
not M6 Classics.

And the flare is worse in the M6 .85 than it is in the .72, although the
"shade" does improve things."

- -----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Steve LeHuray
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: .85x and 75-135mm


> i am a real "shade" convert, on both my 72 and 85 (i like the "sling"
too.)
> the shade seems to make a big difference on the 85.  i find the frame
> lines do dim a bit, particularly on the right side.
>
> -rei
>

I have been wondering about the dreaded M flare for several years now,
wondering because flare has never occured with any of my Ms (2 M2s, M3, 2
M6TTLs). Many others have also have no flare problems. Could it have
something to do with the difference in peoples eyes? Could it be there is a
correct and incorrect way to look through the viewfinder?

sl


From leica mailing list:
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 
From: "B. D. Colen" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: .85x  now flare in the viewfinder

Sorry, Don...It doesn't matter where I move my eye...Particularly when there
is strong light coming from above...as Slobodan noted, when one is working
on a commercial job and must get the shot, it is a real problem.

B. D.


From leica mailing list:
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 
From: "B. D. Colen" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] Re: .85x  now flare in the viewfinder

I was hardly suggesting that you don't shoot constantly and
don't do wonderful commercial work, Don....I do, however, doubt that this is
a "unit variable" problem.

Everyone's pal Erwin long-ago noted that there were changes made in the
viewfinder that cause the flare. It is a real problem, so real that Erwin
noted it in his review of the M7, in which he said that the problem had been
reduced, but NOT eliminated. And so now we have Leica saying that they are
going to do something about the problem in the newer M7s, and that we can
retrofit M6 TTLs to deal with the problem. If this was some weird little
quirk, I doubt they would be going to this length to fix it.

And of course, use the tool that works...The M6, flare or no, works for me.
But the flare is an annoying problem.

B. D.
...


From leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 
From: "B. D. Colen" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] finder flare

Peter - I don't believe anyone has contended that the rangefinder flare
problem is related to any of the cameras you mention. It is an M6-M7
problem, which, if I'm not mistaken, means that it probably appeared with
the M4-2. If my memory serves me right, Erwin at some point said that the
rangefinder internal configuration changed after the M4.

This is not a problem of the imagination, nor is it one of eye position -
although eye position can aggravate it:

It is a design flaw, and one that Leica should have fixed years ago.

B. D.


- -----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]On Behalf Of Peter Klein
Sent: Tuesday, September 17, 2002
Subject: Re: [Leica] finder flare


Steve:  John Collier's observations and mine agree.  I have never
encountered the RF flare problem in any M2, M3 or M4 camera I've tried,
including the M2 I owned in the 70s.  All rangefinders can either white out
or disappear if you look through them sufficiently cockeyed, but what
everyone complains about is decidedly a post-M4 phenomenon.

I think you are right about people's eyes making a difference.  I have worn
glasses all my life.  Last year, I got contacts.  All of a sudden I got a
different perspective on the RF flare problem.  My eyes are fairly deep-set
relative to my eyebrows.  I could never see all of the 35mm frame in a
standard .72x viewfinder with glasses.  I also noticed that people's advice
about the RF flare--"shift your eye slightly and it goes away"--didn't
apply to me.  If I shifted my eye slightly I couldn't see even the 50mm
frame.

Then I got contacts.  All of a sudden I could see a 35mm frame, and I could
shift my eye to get rid of (or at least reduce) most cases of RF flare.
Being closer to the eyepiece, I had more "wiggle room."

The flare caused by oblique light striking the illuminator window is really
annoying.  I have found that I can often reduce it enough to focus by
shifting my eye.  But sometimes it just makes focusing impossible.

For this situation, Lutz Konermann's "The Shade" is the best solution I've
found.  As someone else noted, it does dim the viewfinder frame lines,
particularly on the right side (but not the RF itself).  This can also be
annoying, but at least one can focus.  In daylight, The Shade can only
help, and there's enough ambient light that the framelines will be OK on
all but the grayest days.  Indoors, with light bulbs all over the place, it
will also help, but you may lose the vertical frameline on the right.

When I wear glasses, "The Shade" is usually stuck on my illuminator
window.  Now that I mostly wear contacts, I keep "The Shade" in my bag, and
stick it on when I need it.  When the sticky surface gives out, I just peel
off the double-sided tape on the back and put a new piece on.

I've also experimented with a red gel over the illuminator window.  This
made the flare a different color than what I mostly focus on, and hence
easier to see through or eliminated by eye shifting.  But I never got used
to red frame lines--just seemed too weird.

I too am awaiting Leica's supposed solution to the flare problem, and what
they do (or don't) will influence a future purchase decision.  It only took
them 20 years(!)

- --Peter Klein
Seattle, WA
Steve LeHuray wrote:
>
> > I have been wondering about the dreaded M flare for several years now,
> > wondering because flare has never occured with any of my Ms (2 M2s,
> > M3, 2
> > M6TTLs). Many others have also have no flare problems. Could it have
> > something to do with the difference in peoples eyes? Could it be there
> > is a
> > correct and incorrect way to look through the viewfinder?


From leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 
From: "B. D. Colen" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] finder flare

This is a VERY funny post, Daniel - "Word is Leica won't leave us in a bind
here. They know about it. Give them six more months."

Daniel, they've know about it since 8?, when the M6 came out. People on this
list have been complaining about it on and off for all the years I've been
here - check the archives. This is a problem as old as the M6 which Leica
has, up until recently, either ignored or denied.

B. D.
...


From leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002
From: "Stuart Phillips" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] finder flare

I notice in the specs for the M7, that the viewfinder window is coated.
Haven't noticed this in any other specs. I wonder if this is germane to the
flare issue. I don't like the idea of "Leica is working on this". This
translates as either we all buy new cameras, someone else will benefit in
the future, or we all retrofit new rangefinders.  I know people do this, but
it's a pretty bizarre idea unless you're putting a new rangefinder into an
M2 for example.

http://www.leica-camera.com/produkte/msystem/vergleich/index_e.html

(At the bottom under miscellaneous)
...


From leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 
From: John Collier [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] finder flare

Yes that is a feature of only the M7. It does help, see archives for
details, but it does not eliminate the problem. If Leica chokes on a
solution, I will have the M7 windows fitted to my two TTLs.

John Collier
...



From leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 
From: Bill Satterfield [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] finder flare

This is the reason I have not bought a M7. Waiting in them to fix this,
the ISO loose dial problem, the advance lever locking up problem, the
battery cover popping off problem. the blinking in the viewfinder when
in non ISO mode problem and one or two others I can not recall. I will
be first in line when they address and resolve these problems. Also,
rumor has it they may becoming out with an engraved top plate.
...



From leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 
From: "B. D. Colen" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] finder flare

You're not wrong, Daniel. According to Erwin Puts the problem has something
to do with the fact that Leica removed a particular condenser lens from the
rangefinder assembly. Some would suggest it was done to reduce costs, but I
would never be so cynical as to suggest that. ;-)

B. D.
...


From leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 
From: Joseph Yao [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] finder flare

Sad to say, the VF window of the Bessa R2 is also multi-coated and its RF
does NOT flare!

Joseph
...


From leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 
From: "B. D. Colen" [email protected]
Subject: RE: [Leica] finder flare

Don't rush out to spend the money, Stuart. Word is that the coating 'help,'
but does NOT eliminate the problem. The little stick-on filter also helps,
and it's allot cheaper than a rangefinder window replacement.


From leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 
From: Bill Satterfield [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: M7 problems

Nathan, several posts have referred to the advance lever locking up.
Leica could not repair it so they replaced the cameras. The ISO dial is
not loose in that sense, posts have indicated it is too easy to move it
and it goes unnoticed. Several posts have mentioned the battery cover
falling off. I am sure not every M has these problems. Otherwise, I
agree about the blinking viewfinder. I assume all 7s do have the flare
problem. I have the 2,3,4,5 and 3 6s. Shoot them all while patiently
waiting to get a  7. This is the way I time travel. I am also enjoying
the joys of a MF Leica type rangefinder, the Mamiya 7. Now have to get
in the darkroom and do some printing  while the chemistry is still being
made. :-)

...


From leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 
From: John Collier [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] finder flare

Actually I first read about the missing element on Stephen Gandy's site
(http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm). Since then I have had two
M4-2 cameras, one early and one late. Both cameras were CLAed by one of
the best and I ask about the provenance of the finders to make sure they
were original (they were). The early camera (one of the first 900 made)
flared the same as my M6TTL while the later one, with the fabled missing
element was just as good as my M2.

I do not know what is causing the flare problem BUT it is not the
missing element.

John Collier
...



From leica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] finder flare

interesting.

my source is Horst Braun, formerly head of repair at Solms.

perhaps we could get them to arm wrestle to settle it once and for all.

Stephen

John Collier wrote:

> Hi Stephen,
>
>
> The tech in question is Gerry Smith of Kindermann Canada. One of the
> best in the world; he knows his Ms and goes way way back. So now I will
> give you the long story.
>
> I bought a used M4-2 which was a late production one from the second to
> last batch produced. It had the usual sluggish slow speeds and the
> vertical alignment was out. Imagine my chagrin at discovering that late
> M4-2 cameras have the new style of finder mechanism which needs a
> special tool to adjust the vertical alignment! So off it goes to Gerry
> for a CLA. I am on the L-U by this time and I am getting pretty annoyed
> with all the whining about viewfinder flare. The camera comes back and
> everything is great.
>
> A year later I decide to take the plunge and get a new TTL. Right out of
> the box the viewfinder flares. I carefully check all of my cameras and
> the M2 and the late M4-2 are fine, no flare. Oh well, I guess the
> whiners were right! I sold the M4-2 to finance the TTL and learned to
> live with the flare.
>
> Two years later, I am getting cocky and thinking I need a third body. So
> I get another M4-2, right from the very first batch of production
> cameras. Out it comes from the box and it flares like my TTL! I check
> and the early style vertical alignment is there. What the h***! Anyhow
> the camera is soon out for a CLA and I ask Gerry about putting in a six
> frame mask set. He tells me maybe. It seems that to fit in the six frame
> mask set you have to remove a viewfinder element (the missing element!).
> Often when he removes the element to fit the mask, it affects the
> superimposed image. As you move your eye from side to side the image
> drifts back and forth making it difficult to focus large aperture long
> focus lenses. My camera was one of the unfortunate ones so no six frame
> mask set for me.
>
> While we were talking about the six frame mask set, I ask about flare,
> the missing element and if my camera has its original finder. I do have
> the original finder and he says that the missing element does not cause
> the flare problem. The later finders have a problem with stray light
> bouncing around. We did not talk much about it but it makes sense as you
> can get the flare to go by shielding the viewfinder illumination window.
>
> So ends a long story,
>
> John Collier
>
> On Wednesday, September 18, 2002, at 03:07 PM, Stephen Gandy wrote:
>
> > John,
> >
> > having confirmed the M4-2 flare problem and cause with the then head of
> > Leica
> > repair at Solms,  I am reasonably sure the info is accurate.
> >
> > did you have your cameras examined by a tech familiar with the M4-2
> > finder
> > variations to identify which type it was?    how do you know the camera
> > with
> > an earlier top plate number has the M4-2 earlier type finder,  or the
> > later
> > camera has the later M4-2 finder ?   If a finder or top plate is
> > interchanged
> > by a good tech, it looks original.
> >
> > Stephen
> >
> >
> > John Collier wrote:
> >
> >> Actually I first read about the missing element on Stephen Gandy's site
> >> (http://www.cameraquest.com/classics.htm). Since then I have had two
> >> M4-2 cameras, one early and one late. Both cameras were CLAed by one of
> >> the best and I ask about the provenance of the finders to make sure
> >> they
> >> were original (they were). The early camera (one of the first 900 made)
> >> flared the same as my M6TTL while the later one, with the fabled
> >> missing
> >> element was just as good as my M2.
> >>
> >> I do not know what is causing the flare problem BUT it is not the
> >> missing element.
> >>
> >> John Collier
...


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 
From: Stephen Castello [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Russian Cameras and Camera Refinishing


 Don LeHue [email protected] wrote:
>Greetings,
>
>First, I've been reading alot regarding the Russian Leica copy cameras this
>past week, and, noting their proliferation on eBay (and even in a small
>local camera shop), I'm wondering which are the higher quality brands and
>models of some of the copy-cats.  Any suggestions, recommendations, things
>to look out for?  Previous postings have suggested some great resources for
>purchasing, but I haven't been able to figure out which are the good ones
>and which to avoid.

If you don't need slow speeds get a Fed 2, otherwise get a Zorki 3M.

Stephen



From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 
From: Ron Schwarz [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Russian Cameras and Camera Refinishing


>First, I've been reading alot regarding the Russian Leica copy cameras this
>past week, and, noting their proliferation on eBay (and even in a small
>local camera shop), I'm wondering which are the higher quality brands and
>models of some of the copy-cats.  Any suggestions, recommendations, things
>to look out for?  Previous postings have suggested some great resources for
>purchasing, but I haven't been able to figure out which are the good ones
>and which to avoid.

Apart from the Feds and Zorkis, the Mockbas are *very* nice if you're so
inclined to medium format work.  The early models are basically identical
to one of the Super Ikontas (I forget the model), in fact the earliest ones
were actually assembled from "liberated" Zeiss components.  The Mockba 5 is
a genuine Russian (or was it Ukranian?) design, compared by some to the
Bessa 2 although having owned both I can assure that the similarities are
*only* cosmetic, and even at that, slight.  Still, it is an excellent piece
in its own right and an absolute steal at fifty bucks or so.


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Sun, 15 Sep 2002 
From: "Mark PEARCE" [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Looking for a 35mm in LTM


My experience with Jupiters, both LTM and CXM, would indicate the lenses
made 1954-1962 are the best of the lot.

You just can't beat a J-12 35mm, even for twice the money. There's one on a
Contax body in my bag right now.

Mark


From leica mailing list:
Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 
From: "Andrew Amundsen" [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] RF Flare solution?

Check this out: http://www.konermann.net/shade.html

Is this the solution some are looking for?-Andrew



from leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] finder flare

John,

having confirmed the M4-2 flare problem and cause with the then head of Leica
repair at Solms,  I am reasonably sure the info is accurate.

did you have your cameras examined by a tech familiar with the M4-2 finder
variations to identify which type it was?    how do you know the camera with
an earlier top plate number has the M4-2 earlier type finder,  or the later
camera has the later M4-2 finder ?   If a finder or top plate is interchanged
by a good tech, it looks original.

Stephen


from leica mailing list:
Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 
From: John Collier [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] finder flare

Hi Stephen,

The tech in question is Gerry Smith of Kindermann Canada. One of the
best in the world; he knows his Ms and goes way way back. So now I will
give you the long story.

I bought a used M4-2 which was a late production one from the second to
last batch produced. It had the usual sluggish slow speeds and the
vertical alignment was out. Imagine my chagrin at discovering that late
M4-2 cameras have the new style of finder mechanism which needs a
special tool to adjust the vertical alignment! So off it goes to Gerry
for a CLA. I am on the L-U by this time and I am getting pretty annoyed
with all the whining about viewfinder flare. The camera comes back and
everything is great.

A year later I decide to take the plunge and get a new TTL. Right out of
the box the viewfinder flares. I carefully check all of my cameras and
the M2 and the late M4-2 are fine, no flare. Oh well, I guess the
whiners were right! I sold the M4-2 to finance the TTL and learned to
live with the flare.

Two years later, I am getting cocky and thinking I need a third body. So
I get another M4-2, right from the very first batch of production
cameras. Out it comes from the box and it flares like my TTL! I check
and the early style vertical alignment is there. What the h***! Anyhow
the camera is soon out for a CLA and I ask Gerry about putting in a six
frame mask set. He tells me maybe. It seems that to fit in the six frame
mask set you have to remove a viewfinder element (the missing element!).
Often when he removes the element to fit the mask, it affects the
superimposed image. As you move your eye from side to side the image
drifts back and forth making it difficult to focus large aperture long
focus lenses. My camera was one of the unfortunate ones so no six frame
mask set for me.

While we were talking about the six frame mask set, I ask about flare,
the missing element and if my camera has its original finder. I do have
the original finder and he says that the missing element does not cause
the flare problem. The later finders have a problem with stray light
bouncing around. We did not talk much about it but it makes sense as you
can get the flare to go by shielding the viewfinder illumination window.

So ends a long story,

John Collier
...


From leica mailing list:
Date: Thu, 19 Sep 2002 
From: John Collier [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Leica] finder flare

RANT MODE ON

  THE TRUTH!

I have read this and other opinions from Leica  and others. I have
heard three different definite causes for the flare from three different
reliable high ups in Leica. So far none of them has resulted in a
solution. Lord knows they have been feeling the heat for 18 (eighteen)
years over the issue. If it is just a simple switch of mirrors why the
h***, pardon the language, do they not switch it back?!!! If it is just
a missing element why wait 18 (eighteen) years to do something?!!!


I may be wrong, which I freely confess, but if the solution is so d***,
pardon the language, simple why is it 18 (eighteen) years and counting?
Were they all dropped on their heads at birth? Do they think we were all
dropped on our heads at birth?

It b*****, pardon the language, better be something fantastically
complicated to take 18 (eighteen) years to fix!

Starting to get just a little annoyed,

John Collier

PS: Nothing personal, it is not you I want to throttle. Normally I am a
very mild mannered not so young man. My apologies to you in advance.

PPS: My personal opinion, of no value, is that it has to do with how the
metering display was incorporated into the viewfinder. This is allowing
stray light from certain angles to white out the finder. This strikes me
as something the little b******s, pardon the language, could well not
have the resourses to fix what with them losing money every year for as
long as I can remember...

RANT MODE OVER

 Dennis Painter wrote:
> The truth is out there, look for it.



from Leica mailing list:
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 
From: Daniel Ridings [email protected]
Subject: [Leica] Looks stupid but it works (rangefinder repair)

My daughter has her birthday. Yesterday evening I was taking pictures of
her and BAM ... that M6 rangefinder that was put into my M3 did its thing.
It flares in ALL available light situations. Never horizontal and vertical
shots at the same time ... but I don't like compositions to be steered by
such stupid circumstances as if the rangefinder flares or not.

So I took the corner of some white copying paper. I cut off a piece the
width of the middle window on the viewfinder and of a length that was
enough to cover the window from top to bottom and extend up over on the
top plate. I put a good crease in it and fastened it to the top plate with
some tape and let the rest cover the middle window.

I went back to the same position as before ... no flare. I lifted up the
paper, and the flare came back. It was really working. The viewfinder
lines are still there, it's easy to focus in dim light. It looks stupid
but it works like a charm.

Now I'll probably carefully cut out a piece to fit exactly over the glass
of the middle window and hold it in place with some Scotch magic tape. (To
try and make it look less stupid).

Anyone with similar problems ... give it a shot. From now on I'll always
have some paper and a roll of tape in my camera back (it's not a very
robust repair and will have to be re-worked now and then).

Makes one wonder if the whole problem couldn't be fixed with thick frosted
glass on the middle window.

Be nice,
Daniel



[Ed. note: thanks to Douglas Nelson for sharing these clone lens pointers...!]
Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2002 
From: Douglas Nelson [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: What about the Kobalux?

KobaWhat??? They made a Leica thread mount 21 and a 28. They MAY be out
of business by now, but you can still find these lenses at Adoramain
NYC.

My 28 seems quite sharp and I can see NO distortion. It's also a neat
fit on a Minolta CLE (with the screw-to-M adapter), and would be great
on a CL, Bessa R, or Bessa R2. The lens and shade are tiny, making a
neat travel and pocket package, unlike the ergonomic nightmare of the
Voigtlander 28 f 1.9. It's only 300 bucks, WITH the finder. How can you
lose, especially since it's about to become a collector's item? See 'em
at kobalux.com. See some shots with it on my web page at
dougnelsonphoto.com under Mexico.

Doug Nelson
[email protected]


From Manual SLR Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 
From: Stephen Gandy [email protected]
Subject: Amazing New CV Stuff


Hi Folks,

Courtesy of a CameraQuest spy at Photokina, a few minutes ago I learned
of some rather amazing things about the new Voigtlander SL lens lineup.

To this point in time, the widest lens available for a Nikon F mount SLR
was the 13mm Nikkor.  The widest Nikon or classic Contax rangefinder
lens was 21.    Soon all of them can shoot with a 12 !

Next year Voigtlander will be marketing the 12/5.6 and 15/4.5 in Nikon F
mount, for mirror lock up.  I am told these lenses will fit the Nikon F,
Nikon F2, F3, and F4.   A special finder will be made to replace the
pentaprism on the F or F2.   scale focus of course.


now the really neat stuff comes to play.

Voigtlander will make an adapter to mount the F mount  12's and 15's on
Nikon Rangefinders (and classic Contax RF's too, since they have the
same outside mount and back focus).

to go one stop further, the same adapter can be used to mount ANY Nikon
F mount lens on Nikon or Contax rangefinders -- scale focusing only, of
course, no rangefinder coupling.

and of course, if you buy the Voigtlander R2S or R2C, you will be able
to use any of these lenses with TTL metering.!

it's amazing these lenses are being made at all, just amazing.

Stephen


Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Review of Russian lenses???
From: Wayne  Cornell [email protected]

In the LTM lenses the Jupiter 12 35mm (Biogon copy) is a very good lens
although I haven run any specific tests. Same goes for the Jupiter 9 85mm
although in both lenses there are good and bad examples. The Jupiter 8 50mm
f2 (Sonnar copy) produces great results. I have five and the all produce
great images. I think all these lenses, at their best, are comparable to
their German counterparts but German quality is more uniform.



from russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 
From: "Kelvin" [email protected]
Subject: Russar 20/5.6

http://www.zenit.istra.ru/qa/qa-rangefinders.html

This may interest some of you. It basically says that while Zenit
has no plans to renew production of LTM39 rangefinders,
they are planning to re-release new LTM39 Russar 20/5.6 lenses.



From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 
From: "Parlin 44" [email protected]
Subject: Slew of Russian PK lenses

I can't read russian but I can educatedly guess what the lenses are
http://www.zenit.istra.ru/catalog/catalog-lenses-90.html

Looks like a high quality line of PK lenses is (was) on the pipeline.  A
complete line of PK lenses 16/2.8, 20/2.8, 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 85/1.4,
135/2.8APO, 300/4.5APO, 25-45, 35-105, 70-210/4 should be able to satisfy
most demanding phographers' needs but we only see very few of them in the
market, mainly the FE Zenitar 16/2.8, rarely variozenitar 25-45 and
recently APO telezenitar 135/2.8, so where are the rest?

parlin


From leica topica mailing list:
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2002 
From: Jim Brick [email protected]
Subject: Re: Leica is out of touch with the real photographic world


Field leaders usually have followers, that is, companies that copy their
products. Like Voigtlander and Rollei copying and adapting the M
lens/rangefinder camera. Leica IS truly the leader in this field. And in
the field of high resolution nearly perfectly corrected lenses. 15R, 19R,
21M, 28R, 28M, 50R, 90R, 90M, 100R, 135M, and all of the long APO R lenses
introduced over the past decade.

MHO,

Jim
...


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 
From: "CC Yau" [email protected]
Subject: RE: Re:drawing of lens optics--found the source

Perhaps you can check the link here:

http://www.fedka.com/Auctions/Images_and_Diagrams/

Merry Christmas!

CC Yau
Hong Kong 



From russian camera mailing list: 
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 
From: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Russian lens tests

"njp66 [email protected] wrote:

>The Soviets did give figures for the resolution of their lenses but
>the figures seem absurdly low.
>Was this based on what they could see on a print, rather than
>examining the negative through a loupe?

The Soviet tests are not lines/mm they are line pairs/mm. which means that the
approximate corelation is double the number.
--
Nathan Dayton
www.commiecameras.com 


From russian camera mailing list: 
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 
From: Bob Shell [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian lens tests

[email protected] wrote:

> The Soviet tests are not lines/mm they are line pairs/mm. which means
> that the approximate corelation is double the number.
> --
> Nathan Dayton
> www.commiecameras.com
>

Line pairs per millimeter is the standard measurement used in optical
testing.  Often you will see it called lines per millimeter, even though
it means line pairs.  I don't think this is why the Russian test numbers
are so low, even though we know the lens performance is much better than
the numbers would indicate.

In their latest issue Popular Photography put some vintage Nikon lenses
through the same tests they use on modern lenses, and the old stuff did
really well in most cases.  It would be great if we could talk them into
testing some Russian glass.

Bob


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 
From: "Jay Y Javier" [email protected]
Subject: Re: RE: Russian lens tests

Nathan

I've found some soviet references so far which do say "line pairs per
millimeter" - a TENTO catalogue, a Zorki-1 passport, and several lens passports
for J-9 and I-61 lenses.  Did something get lost in the translation?

Jay


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 
From: "tigerarm2000 [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian lens tests

...
Chinese national standard of 35mm lens resolution is also very low.
37 l/mm at center and 22 l/mm at edges is good enough to be rated a
first grade lens(J1).
Use the method to test a Nikon normal lens would give  a resolution
figure of about 50 L/mm at center.
I think the resolution of film plays a very important role in the
tests.

Zhang 


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian lens  tests

The Soviets only gave a single center/edge or center/corner measurement,
probably with the lens wide open.  Resolution should be better with each
lens stopped down two or three stops.

For practical purposes with 35mm what counts most is not ultimate
resolution but contrast (MTF) at about 20 lpm, which means how cleanly
light and dark points that end up spaced about 1/1000" apart on a
negative are tonally separated.  Not coincidentally, this is the circule
of confusion used to compute depth of field.  In a 10x enlargement those
points will be about 1/100" apart. What happens out beyond 20 lpm is of
diminishing importance in influencing our subjective sense of sharpness.

Of course you should adjust this critical point as film size and
enlargement ratio changes.  For instance if you routinely enlarge 35mm to
16x20 the critical resolution becomes about 32 lpm. 



From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 
From: Paul Shinkawa [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: Russian lens  tests

Dave:

Thank you! That is the clearest explanation I've read
on resolution and testing with respect to 35mm.

-Paul
...


From russian camera mailing list:
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 
From: Kevin Kalsbeek [email protected]
Subject: Re: Russian lens tests

Neil,
They used a very different system! One source, Vade Mecum, says it represents
microns, rather that line, or line paires per millimeter.
They work nicely though, don't they! B^)

Kevin  


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 
From: Peter Evans [email protected]
Subject: screw mount Leicas: the heresies continue


All this talk of amazing fixed-lens rangefinders makes me think of my
youth, when I ignorantly poohpoohed such cameras and instead doggedly
carried around (or more often didn't carry around) a humongous SLR that
I generally used with a 35mm lens. Er, anyway, the 30 November issue of
the British rag Amateur Photographer has a long and interesting article
by Ivor Matanle about postwar screw-mount Leicas. Very, very briefly, he
thinks they are wonderful. Yes, are as well as were. The bodies, at
least. Curiously:

(a) He doesn't mention Leica wannabes. I'm surprised at this in the
context of cameras for use. I was under the impression that a number of
wannabes -- e.g. the Canon IVSB2, let alone some later, rear-loading
Canons or indeed those recent whatchamacallems from Cosina -- were
arguably at least as usable as the Leicas.

(b) He's measured in his praise of Leitz glass. The best get very high
praise indeed, but for cat-among-pigeons remarks, how about:

| let us not forget the ubiquitous Soviet
| 35mm f/2.8, 85mm f/2 and 135mm f/4 Leica
| screw-mount lenses that smile at us at
| every camera fair. Their engineering may
| feel rather rough, but most deliver more
| satisfying results, if in good condition,
| than the majority of pre-1954 Leica lenses


Peter Evans || [email protected]


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] voit r2s


  The Bessa R is VASTLY superior to the IIIf, and pretty much equivalent to the
M6 in many ways, superior in one--the rubber is a little easier to grip than
the leatherette of the M6 I rented over the weekend.  I did a comparison (on
TMAX100) of the 35mm aspheric SUmmicron vs the VC 35mm 1.7 Ultron Asph, and
found them to be very close.  The Leitz  won one contest, a shot of a little
pond with floating fir needles and leaves. It was slightly sharper at the 2-3
meter distance.  A medium range (6 meters)shot of a pond with a little shrine
was a tossup, 11x14 prints indistinguishable.  An amazing outcome, considering
the difference in cost. The meters in each camera read the same, and had the
same brightness in the finder---a tie.

  The R body is lighter and less substantial feeling than the M6, and the M6
rangefinder spot is crisper and somewhat brighter,  THe view thru the finder is
very slightly--maybe 1/3 stop--brighter than the Bessa.  If I had a bunch of
Leica lenses, I'd have the R or R2 and save my expensive Leica body for special
occasions.  SHutter noise not a big issue, though less in Leica; both are way
quieter than my Nikon F3, now in camera heaven... THe 35mm Summicron was a
PITA---the aperture ring is close enough to the focusing ring to make it necessary
to refocus a lot---the Summicon's focus ring was VERY easy to nudge, not as
stiff as the Ultron, which was just right--not so stiff as to be hard to turn,
stiff enoough to stay put once focused.

   I just got the 15mm Heliar and am blown away--you can aim at the horizon and
see up your nostrils, pretty nearly!!!

> Oops...when Mehrdat left the space out of Bessa R2 S and didn't capitalize
> it, I thought he meant the generic R2 (in plural). Stephen has the cameras
> in stock, but I'm balking on an R2 C simply because I have SO MANY
> RANGEFINDERS. I'm trying to sell or trade my Leica IIIf. Then, if I get an
> R2 C, I'll feel like I broke even. :-)
>
> Jeffery


From: "David Kieltyka" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Lens comparison, any pointers?
Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2002


DunxUK [email protected] wrote:
> I'm trying to choose between the Jupiter 8M and the
> Helios for the Kiev.
>
> The Jupiter is f2 50mm, the Helios is f1.8 53mm. The
> coating on the Helios looks almost non-existent when
> compared to the Jupiter (is that normal..?).
>
> Has anyone ever had an opportunity to compare these?
> Possibly neither are retrofocal. Alternatively any links?
> I'm not so interested in a straight lpmm comparison. :o)

Unlike the resident riff-raff I have actual experience with this gear. Both
the Jupiter-8 and Helios are fine lenses and both can be had for not much $$
or �� or whatever. The Helios does have a very light-colored coating. (I
guess this is normal...I have an early '80s Jupiter-9 (85mm f/2) with the
same light coloration.) Of the two I prefer the Jupiter-8 but the Helios is
a bit higher in contrast and maybe also in resolution. Keep in mind that
quality control was iffy with late production Soviet cameras and lenses, so
try before you buy if possible.

-Dave-



From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 
From: Dante Stella [email protected]
Subject: Long: was Re: [RF List] Hexar-Soviet lens usage


William Latham wrote:

> I see, then the adapter used with say a J 9, 85/2 would bring up  the 90mm
> frame line in a Hexar. The J 12 would have the 35mm lines. Would that lens
> fit with the deep inner element?

Yes. The Hexar's shutter cavity is apparently designed to accommodate
that lens, since the cylindrical section cutout fits the rear element
perfectly.

> Also, has anyone tried using the Soviet lenses with the Hexar?

Yes, it works as well as on a Leica but be aware that there are
incompatibility issues with Leicas. Bob Ludwig just emailed me about
an empirical test of 33 lenses and bodies - and I have added it to the
following page:

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html

I think that such a systematic test proves pretty conclusively that the
Soviet lenses are set up differently. Helicoid pitch is not something
that bad QC can simply screw up.

Marc Small will of course argue (and correct me if I'm wrong) that his
SPS late multicoated Jupiter-3 made -- if I recall -- in the late
1980s -- is perfectly sharp, but I would surmise that his lens is off
Soviet spec in the near range (due to the dimension of the collimation
shim), and that increasing depth of field masks the problem at longer
ranges. I can't remember whether he was using it on a Kiev or a Leica
- I think he mentioned he had both versions. If it's a Kiev lens on a
Kiev, it should be fine.

It is difficult to believe that the helicoid on Marc's lens would be
cut any differently from every other LTM J-3. Marc's experience is not
typical, at least by my observing the comments people make about these
lenses. My experience with a bunch of J-3s is that they are good on
Soviet bodies, or at f/4, but they are less than stunning on Leicas and
Hexars wide open.

Almost every single person who has commented on the Jupiter-3 has
commented on its softness at f/1.5 at close range. This is not a
feature of Contax Sonnars or SC-Nikkors, both of which have the same
design. The softness is easy to achieve if the helicoid pitch (the
focusing or the RF coupling) is wrong; a 50/1.5 at 1m has only has 1.3
inches of DOF, which is already taxing the rangefinder mechanism of any
camera. The average error Ludwig measured at 1.5m (~59") was 2.5" in
front of the focused subject. At that distance and f/1.5, the depth of
field is 3.1", so if your lenses are average, it is a total miss,
unless your circles of confusion are bigger than the norm. At 2m, it's
a little fairer fight.

No such systematic test has ever been done on Hexar/Leica compatibility
issues (well, counting posts, it would appear that 99%+ of Hexars
function well with Leica lenses).

Regards
____________
Dante Stella
http://www.dantestella.com


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 
From: "William Latham" [email protected]
Subject: Hexar-Soviet lens usage


I see, then the adapter used with say a J 9, 85/2 would bring up the 90mm
frame line in a Hexar. The J 12 would have the 35mm lines. Would that lens
fit with the deep inner element?

Also, has anyone tried using the Soviet lenses with the Hexar? It seems
that you could combine the Hexar body ($648)with the 3 popular Soviet
Jupiter LTM lenses (around $160 plus adapter $100 from Stephen) and come up
with an inexpensive full coverage kit.

Bill Latham


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 
From: Dante Stella [email protected]
Subject: Long: was Re: [RF List] Hexar-Soviet lens usage

William Latham wrote:

> I see, then the adapter used with say a J 9, 85/2 would bring up
> the 90mm
> frame line in a Hexar. The J 12 would have the 35mm lines. Would
> that lens
> fit with the deep inner element?

Yes. The Hexar's shutter cavity is apparently designed to accommodate
that lens, since the cylindrical section cutout fits the rear element
perfectly.

> Also, has anyone tried using the Soviet lenses with the Hexar?

Yes, it works as well as on a Leica but be aware that there are
incompatibility issues with Leicas. Bob Ludwig just emailed me about
an empirical test of 33 lenses and bodies - and I have added it to the
following page:

http://www.dantestella.com/technical/compat.html

I think that such a systematic test proves pretty conclusively that the
Soviet lenses are set up differently. Helicoid pitch is not something
that bad QC can simply screw up.

Marc Small will of course argue (and correct me if I'm wrong) that his
SPS late multicoated Jupiter-3 made -- if I recall -- in the late
1980s -- is perfectly sharp, but I would surmise that his lens is off
Soviet spec in the near range (due to the dimension of the collimation
shim), and that increasing depth of field masks the problem at longer
ranges. I can't remember whether he was using it on a Kiev or a Leica
- I think he mentioned he had both versions. If it's a Kiev lens on a
Kiev, it should be fine.

It is difficult to believe that the helicoid on Marc's lens would be
cut any differently from every other LTM J-3. Marc's experience is not
typical, at least by my observing the comments people make about these
lenses. My experience with a bunch of J-3s is that they are good on
Soviet bodies, or at f/4, but they are less than stunning on Leicas and
Hexars wide open.

Almost every single person who has commented on the Jupiter-3 has
commented on its softness at f/1.5 at close range. This is not a
feature of Contax Sonnars or SC-Nikkors, both of which have the same
design. The softness is easy to achieve if the helicoid pitch (the
focusing or the RF coupling) is wrong; a 50/1.5 at 1m has only has 1.3
inches of DOF, which is already taxing the rangefinder mechanism of any
camera. The average error Ludwig measured at 1.5m (~59") was 2.5" in
front of the focused subject. At that distance and f/1.5, the depth of
field is 3.1", so if your lenses are average, it is a total miss,
unless your circles of confusion are bigger than the norm. At 2m, it's
a little fairer fight.

No such systematic test has ever been done on Hexar/Leica compatibility
issues (well, counting posts, it would appear that 99%+ of Hexars
function well with Leica lenses).

Regards
____________
Dante Stella
http://www.dantestella.com


From: "HomeStudio" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: ERWIN Pees On Leica Advocates
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 

ERWIN PUTS rated the 50mm f/1.5 Voigtlander Nocton BETTER than the Leica
50mm f/1.4 Summilux! How can this be??? Oh my gawd....great googly
moogly!!!!.....the Leica Summilux costs $1.5K...the Nocton only three
hundred and fifty bucks!!!!!!!!!!

Could it be that Leica buyers are getting ripped again????
.....aaaaaiiii....!!


From: "SWB" [email protected]
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: ERWIN Pees On Leica Advocates
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003

OK, I'll quote the full thing for you

"My list would be. Number 1 is the Summilux-R new, the number 2 with a fair
gap is the Nokton and the number 3 is the Summilux-M, which is better
engineered but optically not as good." Erwin Puts.

So you see, if you quote only the bits you want, and I quote only the bits I
want, nobody gets to know the truth, do they? So next time you want to play
with the facts, and make a stupid statement, and if you want people to
believe you, make sure there isn't a 'smoking gun' lurking to disprove your
argument.

For your information the current M Summilux, which you omitted to mention is
the one you were jumping around in glee over, was introduced in 1962. That's
forty years ago, and its taken Voigtlander this long to catch up and
overtake it!? So who has really been ripped off over all that time, and
dished up with inferior lenses. Not Leica users.

Steve


"HomeStudio" [email protected] wrote 
>
> "SWB" [email protected] wrote 
> > For people who want to read Erwin Puts review, in which the Summilux wins
> > over the Nocton by a 'fair gap', here is the link
> > http://www.imx.nl/photosite/japan/voigtl01.html
> >
> > Steve
>
> Huh????
>
> I quote: " But face to face with the Summilux-M the Nokton wins on points,
> not by knock out."



Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
From: Zhang XK [email protected]
Subject: [Russiancamera] Re: Some resolution numbers

Rob K. wrote:
>
> Hi Zhang,
>
> Thanks a lot, such information is very hard to find. Does
> the book mentions the subject-contrast of his tests ? (most
> "commercial" tests use every trick to get a resolution as
> high as possible).
> Is there an non-Asiatic translation ? If so can you give me
> the authors name ?
> He didn't test the Volna 9, I-50, Helios44M(4-7) ? (I think
> the Russians are too modest about them espec. the V9)
>
> Kind Regards Rob K.
>
> ps
> For the moment I'm reading an article of J. Fl�gge about the
> R-Biotar (f=0.84) of Zeiss and the optical problems of high
> speed lenses. He did some independent tests on ultra fast
> lenses and his conclusions are very interesting.

Hi Rob,

This is a sort of academic book that covers all sorts of optic lenses. The
author is Bao Xuecheng. I don't think there is an English version. The
author does not mention where he got those numbers. There are no
subjective-contrast test reports although there there are some charts of MFT
curves.

There are also some FSU lenses resolution figures as follows:

Mir-10 28/35mm 40 lp/mm center 35lp/mm edge
Elmarit 35/2.8 50 lp/mm 27lp/mm
Super-takumar 3.5/35mm 50lp/mm 26lp/mm

Mir-22 45/3.5 48lp/mm 20lp/mm
Mir-38 65/3.5 47lp/mm 211p/mm
Jupiter-36 250/3.5 50 lp/mm 25lp/mm
Industar-61 52/2.8 46lp/mm 27lp/mm
(Tessar 50/2.8 50lp/mm 31lp/mm)
Industar-81 38/2.8 45lp/mm 19lp/mm
3m-3 600/8 50 lp/mm 35lp/mm

The interesting point is that under identical testing conditions, some of
the name brand lenses do not seem much superior to their Soviet counterparts.

Regards


Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 
From: Kevin Kalsbeek [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Re: Some resolution numbers

Hey Rob,

I agree, the info was decidedly interesting. I suspect that the relatively low
figures given by Soviet sources are lower due to test methods, rather than any
great inferiority of the lenses.

That's ok, though, let the naysayers do what they will. It will leave more good
performing lenses for us to use!

Regards,
Kevin


Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 
From: "Jay Y Javier" [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Re: [Russiancamera] Re: Some resolution numbers

Or could the quoted figures be really very old resolution data derived with the use of lower resolution film? 
Figures which have never been updated when better emulsions were available perhaps? Resolution, after all is 
dependent not just on the lens, but on the accutance of the film as well.

Just a thought :-)

Jay


Date: Sat, 05 Apr 2003 
From: Kevin Kalsbeek [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Re: Some resolution numbers

Hi Jay,

Very true, but from what little I have been able to find out, the GOST system was different, just as the old ASA system was different from the DIN systems for film. Likely it was a combination of factors that resulted in the lower numbers.
I rather expect that the GOST test methods specified a standardized film for this. Whether the older film was of lower resolution is problematic. I sort of think that the older thick emulsion films might have actually been of higher resolution than the average film these days, but then, I have no
proof.

Take care!
Kevin



Date: Sat, 5 Apr 2003 
To: Russiancamera-user [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Russiancamera] Re: Some resolution numbers
From: Zhang XK [email protected]

> Hi Zhang,
>
> Yes- I would very much like to see the data if you can locate
> it.
> Many thanks!
> Kevin

Hi Kevin,

I found the data on September 1997 issue of Photo&Video magazine.

Zenitar-M ( I thought it was a Helios 44) 58/2 S/N 90621570
T-Max100 B/W film was used.

F2 63lp/mm center 25 lp/mm edges
F4 100lp/mm 55 lp/mm
F5.6 125 lp/mm 63 lp/mm
F8 100 lp/mm 70 lp/mm
F11 90 lp/mm 55 lp/mm
F16 63 lp/mm 45 lp/mm

The author claimed that the resolution at center at F5.6 was on par with
that of best German and Japanese normal lenses that have been tested. And
the lens has a very high macro capability at 1:5 that exceeded the highest
figures of the testing chart. the author said that he has tested other
Russian normal lenses such as Zenitar, Helios and Industar and the center
resolution of these lenses usually far surpass that of brand Japanese normal
lenses and almost the same as Zeiss Planar.
However, he siad the tested Zenitar has very low edge resolution.

Regards



[Ed. note: long sold by the time you read this, but here for info only on option..]
From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 
From: doug nelson [email protected]
Subject: FS: 42 thread to LTM adapter


Nearly new Pentax 42 screw lens-to-Leica thread mount adapter. This is a
very inexpensive way to add a focal length you don't use much (28, 24
maybe) to your Bessa R, L or Leica thread mount, or Russian LTM
rangefinder. This adapter is black, and appears to be, from the print on
the side, to be made by the company that sells the cameraquest adapters.
$30 plus $3 to ship in the US.


From nikon MF mailing list:
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 
From: "Jeff Matsler" [email protected]
Subject: Re: Leica MF comparable to F3HP?

If you're wanting Leica designs...

The Minolta XE7 is the prototype, designed by Leica, for the MR3. If you
use it and the Minolta 35-70 MD zoom (also designed by Leica), you've got a
Leica designed system, including glass, for about a third the price.

The Minolta XD7 is the prototype, again designed by Leica, for the MR4.

The Minolta CL and CLE are both Leica designed / Minolta built rangefinders
with the Minolta badge on them. They came as a Minolta or Leica, you pick
the brand and price, and take Leitz lenses.

Jeff M
...



From Rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 
From: Gerry Young [email protected]
Subject: RE: M42 to LTM adaptors


Roger Williams wrote:
>
> Does anyone know where to get an M42 to LTM (or M) adaptors? I am
> getting an M42 full-frame fisheye and want to use it on my Bessas, with
> an "L" (LTM with no rangefinder anyway) or a "T" (which as you may know
> uses the M mount). My guess is the LTM would be cheaper and might be
> more widely available. It's also my preference for using with the
> fisheye. But I've no clue where to get one.
>
> I don't like E-bay so I'm looking for OTHER potential sources.

Roger, there is an English company called SRB who make such an adaptor,
see http://www.srbfilm.co.uk/index1.html page 7 of the adaptor cataogue
lists them at �17.95 (about $28). They have a good reputation and are
always responsive at trade shows to wacky ideas!

Gerry Young


From rangefinder mailing list:
Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2003 
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RF List] Other Poor Man's Leica Cameras) and thoughts....

[email protected] writes:

In short, they're not unlike the Leica bodies in capability, though to be
sure many of them don't have interchangeable lenses. 

It seems to me that the term has some history surrounding it.
When Leica wanted a small rangefinder camera, they went to Minolta.
Minolta produced a camera that met L's requirements. I think they called them
CL or CE or something like that. I'm really not a Leica groupie.

Anyway a lot of talk went up about the Minolta cum Leica models and people
started to say that the lens in the Minolta Hi Matic 7SII was made on the same
formula that Minolta used on the L camera. But for some reason the PML nomen
did not take insofar as the 7SII was concerned. People were still looking for
the PML, and someone suggested that the old Canonet GIII would better fit the
description.

Some of the photography magazine Canonet QL17 GIII hype may have also used
the term in the original reviews of the camera.

The GIII was "rediscovered" a few years ago, and the hype was revived and
perhaps supesized.

The GIII is a nice camera and I enjoy using it. But I think the Minolta Hi
Matic E has a tad sharper, contrastier lens. But the GIII is easier to handle
and carry around.

But then, I'm no authority on cameras or on anything else for that matter.

IMHO if you are shooting with an Argus A and it gives you what you
want..........
go with it and enjoy.

Roland F. Harriston



[Ed. note: a chance to save over 50% buying overseas?...]
From lenses mailing list:
From: Bertram Schacherer [[email protected]] 
Sent: Mon 7/7/2003
To: [email protected] 
Subject: RE: [LENSES] Price in Germany, was Second Hand 35/1.2!

Roger,

I get a feeling of having missed something, happens very often now :-)
I remember that someone was talking about a price of US$ 970,- in Japan. The lens 
is offered now also in Germany for 1800,- Euros, which is about the double price.

Do I remember correctly this japanese price?

Best,
Bertram


From: Peter Evans [[email protected]] 
Sent: Mon 7/7/2003
To: [email protected] 
Subject: Re: [LENSES] Price in Germany, was Second Hand 35/1.2!

From lenses mailing list:
Hello list.

Yes, in Japan the CV 35/1.2 is a lot closer to 970 USD than to 1800 EUR.
And I'd imagine that the price will sink slightly, once the initial
enthusiasm wears off. (I don't mean to denigrate the lens in any way;
this is simply the normal process.)





End of Page